2020 Soil Conservation

Standard and Guidelines

California Department of Parks and Recreation

Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division

Table of Contents
2020 Soil Conservation Standard and Guidelines ........................................................ 1

Table of Contents ...........................................................................................................i

List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... iii

1.0 2020 Soil Conservation Standard........................................................................... 5

1.1 Review and Update .............................................................................................. 5

1.2 2020 Soil Conservation Standard ......................................................................... 5

1.3 Applicable Statutes and Regulations .................................................................... 6

1.3.1 Public Resources Code .................................................................................. 6

1.3.2 Other Applicable Laws and Regulations .................................................................... 8

1.4 Definitions of Terms for the 2020 Standard .......................................................... 8

2.0 2020 Soil Conservation Guidelines ...................................................................... 10

2.1 Background ........................................................................................................ 10

2.2 Objective of the Guidelines ................................................................................. 10

2.3 Defining Successful Compliance with the 2020 Standard................................... 11

2.4 Where to Apply the Standard .............................................................................. 12

2.5 Approaches to Evaluating Compliance with the 2020 Standard ......................... 13

2.5.1 Project, Project Area, Soil Conservation Plan .............................................. 14

2.5.2 Use of Assessments and Monitoring ............................................................ 15

2.5.3 Maintenance Planning .................................................................................. 22

2.5.4 Monitoring Techniques ................................................................................. 24

2.5.5 The Compliance Report and Action Plan Portions of a Soil Conservation Plan
............................................................................................................ 28

2.6 Considerations for Practice: Project Design and Construction ........................... 29

2.6.1 Previous Land Use and Hazard Consideration ............................................ 29

2.6.2 OHV Area Visitor Information ....................................................................... 30

i
 2.6.3 Use of Best Available Science within Soil Conservation Plans .................... 31

2.6.4 Critical Existing Resources........................................................................... 31

2.7 Specific Guidance for Project Design and Construction ..................................... 34

2.7.1 Project Design Considerations......................................................................... 34

2.7.2 Designing for Specific (Variable) Environments ........................................... 36

2.7.3 Project Design Features ............................................................................... 39

2.7.4 Construction Practices ................................................................................. 43

Reference List ............................................................................................................ 47

Appendix 1 – Definitions ............................................................................................ 52

Appendix 2 – Soil Loss Modeling Tools ..................................................................... 58

Appendix 3 – Trail Evaluation Form ........................................................................... 60

Appendix 4 – Maintenance Checklist Form ................................................................ 66

ii
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Definition

BLM Bureau of Land management

BMP Best Management Practice

CARC Consulting Agency Review Committee

CCR California Code of Regulation

CGS California Geological Survey

CDFW Department of Fish and Wildlife

DWR California Department of Water Resources

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CESA California Endangered Species Act

CWA Clean Water Act

DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation

EHR Erosion Hazard Rating

FESA Federal Endangered Species Act

GIS Geographic Information Systems

GRAIP Geomorphic Road Analysis and Inventory Package

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

OHMVR Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle

PRC Public Resources Code

QA/QC Quality Assessment/Quality Control

RUSLE Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation

SB Senate Bill
iii
SCP Soil Conservation Plan

SVRA State Vehicular Recreation Area

USFS United States Forest Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

WEEP Water Erosion Prediction Project

WEPS Wind Erosion Prediction System

iv
1.0 2020 Soil Conservation Standard
1.1 Review and Update
In October 2017, Senate Bill 249 was enacted, requiring the California State Parks
(DPR), Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division to:

“…review, and if deemed necessary, update the 2008 Soil Conservation Standard
and Guidelines to establish a generic and measurable soil conservation standard
by December 31, 2020 (Public Resources Code, Section 5090.35 (b)).”

The 2008 Soil Conservation Standard and Guidelines are intended to ensure
appropriate resource management and maintenance in areas of off-highway vehicle
(OHV) use. They specifically apply to: (1) All OHV-related trail and road maintenance
projects, (2) all OHV-related development projects, on federal and local government
lands that receive funding from the California OHV Grants and Cooperative Agreements
Program, and (3) California’s State Vehicular Recreation Areas (SVRAs).

The review process has found that the 2008 Soil Conservation Standard and Guidelines
(2008 Standard and Guidelines), developed in consultation with federal land managers
(United States Forest Service and the United States Bureau of Land Management), has
provided an effective framework for soil resource conservation for the OHV
Management. However, some updates to the document were identified. State and
Federal members of the Consulting Agencies, were surveyed to receive input on
updates to the 2008 Standard and Guidelines. Survey responses were reviewed,
summarized, and considered in the revision process. A revised draft was sent to the
Consulting Agency Review Committee (CARC), a consulate consisting of the U.S
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the Department of
Conservation (DOC) to review and provide feedback. A finalized draft was posted for
public review and comment before the final draft was adopted. Per the review findings,
the 2008 Standard and Guidelines have been updated for clarity, use, and to account
for technological changes in vehicles used for OHV recreation.

1.2 2020 Soil Conservation Standard

The 2008 Standard and Guidelines provides guidance to achieve the following
standard:

Off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation facilities shall be managed for sustainable

long-term prescribed use without generating soil loss that exceeds restorability,
and without causing erosion or sedimentation which significantly affects resource
values beyond the facilities. Management of OHV facilities shall occur in
accordance with Public Resources Code, Sections 5090.2, 5090.35, and 5090.53.

5
Presented below are statutes and regulations that apply to the 2020 Soil Conservation
Standard (Standard); and definitions of terms in the 2020 Standard. These are followed
by the 2020 Soil Conservation Guidelines (Guidelines). The 2020 Guidelines provide
tools and techniques that may be used to meet the 2020 Standard. Other tools and
techniques, that are more applicable to specific facility conditions and organizational
protocols, may be used as appropriate to comply with the 2020 Standard.

1.3 Applicable Statutes and Regulations

1.3.1 Public Resources Code

Section 5090.02 (c) of the Public Resources Code (PRC) states the California
Legislature’s intent with regard to soil conservation:

5090.02 (c)(1) Existing off-highway motor vehicle recreational areas, facilities and
opportunities be expanded and be managed in a manner consistent with this
chapter, in particular to maintain sustained long-term use.

5090.02 (c)(2) New off-highway motor vehicle recreational areas, facilities, and
opportunities be provided and managed pursuant to this chapter in a manner that
will sustain long-term use.

5090.02 (c)(3) The department should support both motorized recreation and
motorized off-highway access to non-motorized recreation.

5090.02 (c)(4) When areas or trails or portions thereof cannot be maintained to

appropriate established standards for sustained long-term use, they shall be
closed to use and repaired, to prevent accelerated erosion. Those areas shall
remain closed until they can be managed within the soil loss standard or shall be
closed and restored.

Implementation practices to meet the Standard within SVRAs are in Section 5090.35 of
the PRC, as presented below:

5090.35 (a) The protection of public safety, the appropriate utilization of lands, and
the conservation of natural and cultural resources are of the highest priority in the
management of the state vehicular recreation areas. Additionally, the division shall
promptly repair and continuously maintain areas and trails, and anticipate and
prevent accelerated and unnatural erosion and other off-highway vehicle impacts
to the extent possible. The division shall take steps necessary to prevent damage
to significant natural and cultural resources within state vehicular recreation areas.

5090.35 (b)(2) If the division determines that the soil conservation standards and
habitat protection plans are not being met in any portion of any state vehicular
recreation area, the division shall temporarily close the noncompliant portion to
repair and prevent accelerated erosion, until the soil conservation standards are
met.

6
 5090.35 (b)(3) If the division determines that the soil conservation standards
cannot be met in any portion of any state vehicular recreation area, the division
shall close and restore the noncompliant portion pursuant to Section 5090.11.

5090.35 (d) The OHMVR shall monitor the condition of soils and wildlife habitat in
each SVRA each year in order to determine whether the soil conservation
standards and habitat protection programs are being met.

5090.35 (e) The division shall not fund trail construction unless the trail is capable
of complying with the conservation specifications prescribed in this section. The
division shall not fund trail construction where conservation is not feasible. The
division shall not fund the maintenance of a trail unless that trail is a component of
a state vehicular recreation area road and trail system.

Section 5090.39(a) of the PRC directs that the department shall require that:

5090.39(a)(1) Any soil conservation standard, wildlife habitat protection plan, or

monitoring program, required by this chapter, applies best available science.

5090.39(a)(2) All standards, plans, and monitoring programs subject to paragraph

(1) shall provide opportunities for public comment, including, but not limited to,
written comments and public meetings, as appropriate.

Similarly, Section 5090.53 of the PRC states that no funds may be granted or expended
for the acquisition of land for, or the development of, a trail, trailhead, area, or other
facility for the use of off-highway vehicles unless all of the following conditions are met:

5090.53(a) If the project involves a ground disturbing activity, the recipient has
completed wildlife habitat and soil surveys and has prepared a wildlife habitat
protection program to sustain a viable species composition for the project area.

5090.53(b) If the project involves a ground disturbing activity, the recipient agrees
to monitor the condition of soils and wildlife in the project area each year in order
to determine whether the soil conservation standards adopted pursuant to Section
5090.35 and the wildlife habitat protection program prepared pursuant to
subdivision (a) are being met.

5090.53(c) If the project involves a ground disturbing activity, the recipient agrees
that, whenever the soil conservation standards adopted pursuant to Section
5090.35 are not being met in any portion of a project area, the recipient shall close
temporarily that noncompliant portion, to repair and prevent accelerated erosion,
until the same soil conservation standards adopted pursuant to Section 5090.35
are met.

7
1.3.2 Other Applicable Laws and Regulations
The 2020 Guidelines are to be used in conjunction with provisions of PRC 5090 et seq.
and CCR 4970 et seq. for OHV use. However, it is the land managers’ responsibility to
recognize other local, state, and federal laws and regulations that are applicable to the
assessment and management of OHV areas, especially where unique environmental
conditions exist. Examples include, but are not limited to: the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the
California Porter-Cologne Act; the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the
California Endangered Species Act (CESA); California Fish and Game Code; the
National Trails System Act (NTSA); the Federal and State Clean Air Acts; statewide
Airborne Toxic Control Measure regulation covering naturally occurring asbestos;
federal, state, and local laws/ordinances that address erosion control and rider safety
issues associated with mined land sites and other hazardous excavations within public
lands used for OHV activities; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, and the California Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act; the National Forest Management Act; and the Antiquities Act, the
National Historic Preservation Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the
Native American Graves Protection Act, and the American Indian Religious Freedom
Act.

1.4 Definitions of Terms for the 2020 Standard

Erosion: The wearing away of rock or soil by the detachment of soil or rock fragments
by water, wind, ice, and other mechanical or chemical forces (CDPR 2008).

Facility: An OHV trail, track, road, corridor, SVRA, open-ride area, staging area, parking
area (excluding structures) (CDPR 2008).

Ground Disturbing Activity: any earth moving Project-related activity. The act of
installing and/or replacing a sign, placing of boulders or other materials (other than
fencing) to delineate a Facility, maintenance or replacement of existing fence lines that
do not require disturbance beyond replacement of fence posts and wire or existing
component, or sweeping sand/dirt from a paved road are not considered a “Ground
Disturbing Activity”. (14 CCR 4970.01)

Long-Term: At a minimum, 25 years [California Code of Regulations (CCR) 4970,

2005].

Management: The coordinated implementation of budgeting, staffing, scheduling,

design, construction, maintenance, monitoring and restoration activities at an OHV
facility, as needed, combined with the effective utilization and coordination of resources,
such as capital, labor, materials, and natural landscape, to achieve the soil conservation
standard, and to ensure effective and efficient use of OHV recreational opportunities
while protecting natural and cultural resources (CDPR 2008).

8
Management Unit: Area of land with distinct boundaries that often includes lands with
similar resources and management objectives. Management units define distinct
manageable-sized areas for organizing and scheduling maintenance work and have
distinct boundaries. Most commonly, an OHV area or park unit is divided into multiple
management units to address each unit’s unique management needs.

Off-Highway Vehicle: An off-highway motor vehicle as specified in CVC Section 38006

and street licensed motor vehicles while being used off-highway (CCR 4970, 2005).

Prescribed Use: The type of OHV activity at the facility as established by the managing
entity (CDPR 2008).

Project: means the activities and deliverables described in the project application to be
accomplished with funding through, which includes both Grant funds and matching
funds a project agreement. (14 CCR 4970.01)

Project Area: the physical boundaries within which the activities will be performed, and
deliverables will be accomplished as described in the project agreement. (14 CCR
4970.01)

Restoration: Means, upon closure of the unit or any portion thereof, the restoration of
land to the contours, the plant communities, and the plant covers comparable to those
on surrounding lands or at least those that existed prior to off-highway motor vehicle
use (PRC Sec. 5090.11).

Sedimentation: The process by which soils, debris, and other materials are deposited,
either on land or in water (CDPR 2008).

Significant: Having a substantial or potentially substantial effect (CDPR 2008).

Soil: All unconsolidated materials above bedrock; the unconsolidated mineral or organic
material on the immediate surface of the earth that serves as a natural medium for the
growth of land plants; the unconsolidated mineral or organic matter on the surface of the
earth that has been subjected to and shows effects of genetic and environmental factors
of climate (including water and temperature effects), and macro- and microorganisms,
conditioned by relief, acting upon parent material over time. Soil differs from the material
from which it is derived in many physical, chemical, biological and morphological
properties and characteristics (AGI, Glossary of Geology, 1997).

Soil Loss: Movement of soil material to a location where the soil cannot be reasonably
retrieved and/or recycled (CDPR 2008).

Sustainable: The facility is managed to meet the soil conservation standard for a
minimum service life of 25 years (CDPR 2008).

See Appendix 1 for additional OHV-related definitions.

9
2.0 2020 Soil Conservation Guidelines
California’s complex geology, soils, varied topography, wide range of climate, and
associated vegetation combine to create varied landscapes on which OHV recreation
occurs. The soils and rock that mantel these landscapes have a broad range of
associated engineering, hydrologic, and other physical properties, which can make
erosion control challenging. The Guidelines provide flexibility for application to all OHV
sites statewide. The Guidelines serve as resource management guidance for OHV use
on prescribed trails and roads, multiple-use roads, and in open ride areas. The land
manager is responsible for determining the recreational activity or activities causing any
specific resource damage and for initiating the appropriate action. Recipients of funding
from the California OHV Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program and SVRA
managers may use the example guidance presented herein, and may create their own
reporting forms, as appropriate, for their facility and/or organizational needs, as long as
the various components of the Guidelines are addressed.

2.1 Background
These Guidelines were developed per SB 249, with input from representatives from
California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Off-Highway Motor Vehicle
Recreation (OHVMR) Division, DPR Natural Resources Division, the DOC Geological
Survey Division, CDFW, USDA, NRCS, BLM, USFS, and USGS.

2.2 Objective of the Guidelines

The objective of these Guidelines is to ensure compliance with the 2020 Standard at
OHV facilities that receive OHV Trust Fund monies for ground-disturbing activities
where legal OHV recreation is allowed. Specifically, this document provides guidance
on what successful compliance looks like, how to meet the 2020 Standard through
assessment and monitoring, and for the use of Soil Conservation Plans and subsequent
Compliance Reports at each of the following land units:

• SVRAs
• Public OHV recreation areas receiving OHV Trust funding for projects with
ground-disturbing activities
o Operations and Maintenance Projects
o Development of New Facilities and Areas

This document also provides helpful resources and specific technical information on
common practices and techniques for consideration in the design, development, and
remediation of OHV facilities.

10
2.3 Defining Successful Compliance with the 2020 Standard
Public Resources Code 5090.35.(b)(1) requires that the Standard be “generic and
measurable”. The Standard provides criteria required to demonstrate successful
compliance. This section of the guidelines is intended to provide specific definitions
which allow interpretation of the 2020 Standard.

Parties assessing compliance should consider the following components of the

Standard.

1. “Sustainable long-term prescribed use” - Successful compliance with the

Standard requires that OHV facilities be managed for sustainable and long-term
use. Sustainability refers to soil management practices that do not degrade or
impair environmental quality onsite or offsite, and do not reduce site productivity
as a result of management practices over time 1. Sustainable prescribed use
would be minimum service life of 25 years (CDPR 2008) 2.

2. To meet the criteria of sustainable long-term use, soil loss must not exceed
restorability (i.e. the ability to be restored 3). Important components of soil
management practices to avoid excessive soil loss and safeguard restorability
include: assessment of erosion potential, inventories of soil loss or condition, and
OHV trail conditions; Soil Conservation Plans; maintenance of facilities; and
monitoring programs. For example, an assessment of erosion potential is
intended to identify areas that are inherently more prone to erosion and therefore
in need of monitoring or avoidance. PRC 5090.02 (c)(4) requires that when OHV
recreation areas or trails or portions thereof cannot be maintained to appropriate
established standards for sustained long-term use, they shall be closed to use
and repaired, to prevent accelerated erosion. Those areas shall remain closed
until they can be managed within the soil loss standard or shall be closed and
restored. Restoration of these areas means that upon closure of the unit or any
portion thereof, the return of land to the contours, the plant communities, and the
plant covers comparable to those on surrounding lands or at least those which
existed prior to OHV use, as defined in PRC 5090.11 and 14 CCR 4970.01.

1 Appendix 1: Definitions – see “sustainability”

2 Appendix 1: Definitions – see “sustainable”

3 Appendix 1: Definitions – see “restore”

11
Erosion and sedimentation are both natural processes, but poor trail design, or trails not
appropriately maintained can intercept and concentrate natural water runoff, leading to
accelerated erosion and excessive sedimentation. OHV facilities should be designed
and maintained to limit accelerated erosion and utilize proper monitoring to ensure
sediment leaving the OHV facility does not significantly impact resource values beyond
the facility. Water and air quality studies can provide useful data in addition to OHV
facility assessment, that can help evaluate successful compliance.

An evaluation of successive assessments performed on an OHV trail facility, as well as

maintenance records, may reveal perennial trouble spots, or trail segments that require
repeated maintenance to ensure the trail tread is maintained and erosion does not
become excessive. Routine ground operations may be able to keep these segments in
check, but a lapse in maintenance on the trail or an extreme weather event may reveal
the overall unsustainability of trail segments. In these cases, land managers must
assess these trail segments beyond typical routine ground operations repair. The trail
system may need more drainage outlets, a redesign of a watercourse crossing,
hardening of a trail section, trail-rerouting, etc., to ensure the trail sustainability.

The 2008 Standard and Guidelines defined sustainability as meeting the soil
conservation standard for a minimum service life of 25 years. To provide additional
guidance on what it means to meet trail sustainability, we look to the USFS’s definition
of a sustainable natural surface trail as “a trail that supports currently planned and
potential future uses with minimal impact and negligible soil loss. The sustainable trail
will require little rerouting and minimal maintenance over extended periods of time”
(USFS 2013). Factors to take into account regarding trail sustainability and restorability
include but are not limited to: frequency of a maintenance cycle, soil and site stability,
hydraulic functioning, and biotic integrity.

2.4 Where to Apply the Standard

The Standard applies to both SVRAs and OHV recreation areas managed by other
agencies offering OHV recreation that benefit from projects funded by OHV Grants and
Cooperative Agreements Program.

Senate Bill (SB) 249 revised PRC 5090.43 so that SVRAs are developed, managed,
and operated for the conservation and improvement of natural resource values over
time. SB 249 also updated requirements in PRC 5090.35 to require demonstrated
compliance with the Standard through annual monitoring of the condition of soils.
Development of Soil Conservation Plans (SCPs) and documentation of maintenance
and monitoring activities provide the tools needed to assess compliance with the
Standard. Successful compliance of the Standard at these State-managed units is
consistent with DPR’s Operations Manual, Section 0308, and with DPR’s Strategic Plan.

Each SVRA shall submit a SCP, to the OHV Division, which covers the entire area of
the SVRA. Due to management constraints and operational logistics, the
implementation of an SVRA’s SCP may occur over several years. SCPs are to be

12
reviewed every 5 years, including a review for CEQA compliance, and updated as
needed. If a SCP includes any new actions, or any actions that are not covered by an
existing CEQA document, it may need further environmental review to ensure
compliance with CEQA.

The OHV Grant program provides resources to be used for a variety of project types
that include ground operations, development, planning, acquisition, maintenance,
restoration, law enforcement, education and safety. Grantees include cities, counties,
federal agencies, federally or state recognized Native American tribes, educational
institutions, non-profit organizations, State agencies, Districts and certified Community
Conservation Corps. Cities, counties, USFS and BLM are eligible to apply for grants to
be used for any of the project types described above. Other federal agencies,
recognized Native American tribes and Districts are eligible to apply for grants covering
all project types except law enforcement. Educational facilities, nonprofit organizations
and certified Community Conservation Corps can apply for grants to be used for ground
operations, restoration, education, and safety. State agencies can apply for grants to be
used for restoration projects. Per CCR Title 14, Division 3, Chapter 15, subsection
4970.06.3 (c), Ground Operations and Development projects involving Ground
Disturbing Activities and receiving grant funding shall submit a SCP with regard to the
proposed Project. The goal of a SCP is to demonstrate successful compliance with the
Standard by incorporating assessments, maintenance planning and monitoring within
the Project Area. Additional specifications for compliance with the Standard for OHV
project types include the following:

• Ground Operations Projects - The purpose of ground operations projects is for

the maintenance and/or conservation of OHV facilities. Examples of ground
operations projects that must comply with the Standard include: maintenance
necessary for reconditioning or rerouting of roads and trails to address
operational concerns and recreational opportunities; repaving existing parking
lots; implementing best management practices for erosion and/or sediment
control measures and stream crossing improvements; and SCP implementation.
• Development Projects - The purpose of development projects is for construction
or improvements of facilities to sustain or enhance OHV recreational opportunity
and experiences. Examples of development project activities include: trail and
trailhead/staging area construction, access road and parking lot construction,
sedimentation basin/pond installation, and discretionary rerouting of roads or
trails.

2.5 Approaches to Evaluating Compliance with the 2020 Standard

The follow guidance is intended to inform resource managers on how to evaluate and
demonstrate compliance with the 2020 Standard, at three scales: the “Project Areas” for
OHV Grants and Cooperative Agreement Program, within “Management Units” of SVRA
facilities, and for entire SVRA facilities.

13
At the Project Area scale, SCPs are used to provide a framework for constructing,
maintaining, and evaluating the efficacy of grant-funded ground operations and
development, projects through assessment, best practices, and monitoring.

At the scales of Management Units and entire SVRA facilities, SCPs provide a
framework for assessing current conditions, inventorying maintenance and repair
needs, and monitoring conditions over time to ensure sustainability of the facility.

2.5.1 Project, Project Area, Soil Conservation Plan

The planning and reporting documents that must be submitted by SVRA and grantees
includes a SCP that comprises maintenance and monitoring plans, a compliance report,
and an action plan. Table 1 summarizes these required documents, the update cycle for
each document as it relates to grantees and SVRAs, and sections within the 2020
Standards and Guidelines where guidance on each document can be found.

Table 1. Summary of required planning and reporting documents by OHV Trust Fund
grantees and SVRAs.

Planning and Update Cycle Relevant Section in

Reporting Documents 2020 Soil Conservation
Standard and
Guidelines
Soil Conservation Plan Grantees = Develop at beginning of project for 2.5.1
project area
SVRAs = Develop for entire SVRA, review every 5
years and update as needed
Maintenance Plan Grantees = Develop at beginning of project for 2.5.1, 2.5.3
(component of Soil project area
Conservation Plan) SVRAs = Update annually

Monitoring Plan Grantees = Develop at beginning of project for 2.5.1, 2.5.4

(component of Soil project area
Conservation Plan) SVRAs = Update annually

Compliance Report Grantees = Submit at end of project for project 2.5.5

and Action Plan area
SVRAs = Submit annually. Per SB-249, annual
monitoring is required to demonstrate compliance
with the Soil Standard at each SVRA. Monitoring
and analysis are components of the Compliance
Report and Action Plan.

Definitions of “Project,” “Project Area,” “Ground Disturbing Activity,” and other terms
relevant to SCPs and the 2020 Standard are provided Section 1.4 and Appendix 1. The
contents and intent of the SCP is further detailed below, as per Title 14, Division 3,
Chapter 15 of the CCR, subsection 4970.06.3:

14
(d) The Soil Conservation Plan shall reference, adopt, and utilize the methods,
considerations, and other suggestions contained in the Soil Guidelines or other
comparable methods or considerations that demonstrate how the Soil
Conservation Standard is being or will be met in the Project Area.
(e) The Soil Conservation Plan shall include:
(1) A map or maps clearly defining the Project Area where ground disturbing
activities related to the Project will take place.
(2) For grant recipients, an initial, map-based assessment of existing
conditions within the Project Area that quantifies or otherwise identifies
grant funded work to be performed within the Project Area. For SVRAs, an
initial, map-based assessment of existing conditions within the
Management Unit that quantifies or otherwise identifies work to be
performed. Examples include, but are not limited to:
(A) Color-coded trail evaluations that identify and quantify trail lengths
to be repaired and/or maintained.
(B) Boundaries of OHV riding areas to be repaired and/or maintained,
(C) Watercourse crossings and drainage control features used to
disperse runoff and minimize sedimentation.
(3) A maintenance plan for the Project Area/Management Unit that describes:
(A) The current trail maintenance schedule,
(B) the type of maintenance conducted,
(C) equipment used for maintenance within the Project Area, and
(D) procedures for documenting maintenance activities.
(4) A description of monitoring procedures to be used for ensuring grant-
funded work within the Project Area is adhering to the Soil Conservation
Standard. The description shall include:
(A) Monitoring methods to be employed,
(B) a monitoring schedule, and
(C) anticipated management of collected monitoring data, such as the
use of a Geographic Information System (GIS) database.

Though not specified in the above CCR subsection 4970.06.3(e)(2), the map-based
assessment should also include any Congressionally designated resources, per the
National Trails System Act (NTSA). More information on the NTSA is available at
www.fs.usda.gov/pct.

Sections 2.5.2 through 2.5.7) provide detailed guidance on the use of assessments,
maintenance planning, monitoring techniques, compliance reporting and other
management and monitoring plans in SCP development.

2.5.2 Use of Assessments and Monitoring

The purpose of assessments and reassessments is to document soil conditions within
the Project Area, Resource Management Unit, or OHV facility and to identify
maintenance/repair needs, evaluate trail performance, and establish a process for
future monitoring. At the Project Area scale, assessments identify conditions and can

15
inform project planning, execution, and post-construction monitoring. At the
Management Unit and OHV facility scale, assessments can be used to identify areas of
the trail that exhibit recurring soil loss, target field surveys and visual inspections to
areas of concern, to estimate background rates of erosion, and to establish an inventory
of data for analyzing changes in conditions over time and identifying areas needing
additional monitoring and/or maintenance.

Assessments and monitoring include systematic analysis of physiographic data, field

data collection, and trail condition evaluation to inform design, development, operation,
and routine maintenance of an OHV facility. Several techniques are available to focus
the scope of assessments and monitoring at large or expansive OHV facilities, including
the delineation of Management Sub-units, analysis of erosion potential, and application
of tools to rate trail condition. These techniques require physiographic information
including terrain and geologic and/or soils data, annual average precipitation data, and
watershed and waterway delineation to inform Geographic Information Systems or
check-list based analysis of expected conditions. The following subsections review the
use of field surveys and visual inspection, analysis of erosion potential, OHV Trail
Condition Evaluation, and other general information used in conducting large-scale
facility evaluation.

2.5.2.1 Assessment of Erosion Potential

An assessment of erosion potential at an OHV facility identifies areas which may be

inherently more prone to erosion, and consequently may need specific drainage and
erosion control design considerations. Several approaches can be used to estimate the
potential for erosion on OHV facility lands. They are useful in assessing of erosion
potential of broad landscapes on which a trail network may be planned or redesigned
and are useful for assessing erosion potential within open-ride areas.

However, most large-scale methods of assessing erosion potential do not account for
erosion susceptibility to the trail tread. Erosion of the trail tread is a function of the
mechanical energy of the vehicle, the drainage controls on the trail and surrounding
area, and the nature of the underlying soils. Therefore, with proper planning, design,
construction, and maintenance, a sustainably functioning trail can perform well by
exhibiting little erosion in an area that is naturally more sensitive to erosion; while a
poorly planned, designed, constructed, or maintained trail may erode even in an area
that is not naturally prone to erosion.

2.5.2.1.1 Physiographic Data Used in Assessment of Erosion Potential

Several types of data are used to assess the potential for erosion of the landscape.
Depending on the scale of the project, a more detailed review of the physical setting of
the OHV facility and the project site may be necessary. Table 2 describes key data and
sources used in erosion assessments.

Table 2. Key data types typically used in erosion assessment and description of the
data and source.

16
Data Type Description and Data Source

Topography Topographic data are used to determine slope, aspect, ridgelines, landslides,
and can inform watershed delineation. GIS layers and online mapping tools
can be found at:

• United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Maps:

https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/tnm-
delivery/topographic-maps, https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/basic/and
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/
• California Geologic Survey (CGS) Maps:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/maps-data
Climate Climate data are used to determine average and extreme precipitation, for
estimating runoff, prevalence of soil and slope instability, dust emissions, and
inform revegetation efforts. Location specific climate information can be
found at:

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data and
https://gis.ncdc.noaa.gov/maps/ncei
• California Department of Water Resources (DWR):
http://cdec.water.ca.gov/snow_rain.html and
http://cdec.water.ca.gov/snow/current/snow/index.html
• Oregon State University:
https://prism.oregonstate.edu/
Geology and These data provide type, distribution, and physical characteristics of rock and
Soils information on soil compaction, drainage, subsidence, risk of erosion, etc.
Location specific geology and soil data can be found at:

• CGS Maps and Data:

https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/maps-data
• USGS Geologic Maps and Natural Hazards:
https://www.usgs.gov/products/maps/geologic-maps and
https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/hazards
• Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm
• NRCS Gridded Soil Survey Geographic (gSSURGO) Database:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/home/?cid=nrc
s142p2_053628

17
Vegetation Vegetation data provide information on vegetation land cover, native and
non-native plant species, and potential for colonization of invasive non-native
species. Vegetation, landcover, and aerial photograph datasets can be found
here:

• United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Cropland Data:

https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/
• USDA Forest Service (USFS) Vegetation Classification and Mapping:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/landmanagement/resourcemanage
ment/?cid=stelprdb5347192
• California Department of Conservation (DOC) Maps, Reports, and
Data:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/county_info.aspx
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Vegetation
Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP):
(includes data on sensitive natural communities)
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP
• CDFW National Agricultural Imagery Program Map Services:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/GIS/Map-Services
• University of Montana Rangeland Analysis Platform:
https://rangelands.app/
• CalFire: (see especially: CalVeg, FVEG, and fire perimeters)
https://frap.fire.ca.gov/mapping/gis-data/
Special Status California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) provides information on the
Species presence of rare plant and animal species and communities, in order to
minimize and avoid impacts. Data are available here:

• CDFW California Natural Diversity Database:

https://wildlife.ca.gov/data/cnddb
Watersheds and Watershed data are used to estimate runoff potential. Watercourse data
Watercourses allow identification of the location of sensitive water resources such as
draws, creeks, and streams. Watershed delineations and water course data
are available here:

• DWR Water Management Planning Tool:

https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/boundaries/
• USGS:
https://water.usgs.gov/wsc/reg/18.html
• CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS):
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS/Dataset-Index
• UC Davis California Watershed Assessment Model (CWAM):
http://cwam.ucdavis.edu/

18
Hydrology Hydrology datasets provide information on stream flow where those data
exist. This information can be used in the design or assessment of water
crossings and erosion assessment. Hydrology data are available from
USGS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and
DWR. Hydrology data for California waterways are available here:

• USGS National Hydrography:

https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/national-
hydrography
• USGS Streamflow Statistics and Spatial Analysis Tools:
https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-
resources/science/streamstats-streamflow-statistics-and-spatial-
analysis-tools
• NOAA National Weather Service:
https://water.weather.gov/ahps/forecasts.php
• DWR California Data Exchange Center:
https://cdec.water.ca.gov/
Sea Level Rise Sea level rise and flood visualization tools have been developed and made
available online for land managers to identify potential issues with sea level
rise and flooding. Multiple tools are available, many of which can be filtered
and compared here:

• Sea the Future: https://www.seathefuture.org/#/

Water Quality Water quality provides information on stream conditions and sediment loads
in water courses. Water quality information can be found here:

• State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Plans and Policies:

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/plans_policies/
• SWRCB California Environment Data Exchange Network (CEDEN):
https://ceden.waterboards.ca.gov/AdvancedQueryTool
• USGS National Water Information System (NWIS):
https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/gw
Depending on local conditions and requirements, an OHV facility may need
to have a water quality management plan. If a listed water body in a Basin
Plan is within or adjacent to an OHV facility, develop a water quality
management plan that addresses those constituents of concern listed for that
water body in the Basin Plan, as well as other water quality concerns specific
to the facility.

19
 Air Quality Air quality data can be used to determine air quality concerns, including
those derived from naturally occurring minerals such as asbestos which may
be exposed on ground surfaces at an OHV facility. Air quality data are
available here:

• California Air Resources Board (CARB):

www.arb.ca.gov
Air quality monitoring may be warranted, but if it is undertaken, take extreme
care to determine and reliably quantify all sources impacting air quality
adjacent the OHV facility. Additionally, determine the direction of prevailing
winds in the vicinity of the OHV facility. Quantify sources impacting air quality
that are delivered to and over the OHV facility due to prevailing winds.

2.5.2.1.2 Exploration of Desktop Data

The use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) or online web viewers allow users to
explore the datasets identified in Table 2 to identify areas with high erosion potential or
sensitive resources.

Aerial photo or satellite imagery can be reviewed for mass wasting erosion features
such as debris flows, landslides, and rock falls that are not discerned by on-the-ground
methods of erosion potential assessment. Automated analyses can be used to scan,
classify, and delineate erosion areas. Typically, historical air photos and other imagery
covering the last 50 years are used in conjunction with soils maps and geologic maps to
develop relative erosion and mass wasting susceptibility maps for a specific project
area. With the advance in satellite imagery, resource managers will be able to access
numerous images in near real-time to provide a dense time-series for pinpointing the
timing and context of erosion events (mass wasting, rockslides, blow-outs, etc.).

Careful delineation of a project area, or resource management areas, can aid in

focusing review and analyses. Subject areas can be subdivided into zones of the same
soil using soil survey data available from the NRCS. Descriptions of soils in NRCS soil
surveys typically include broad evaluations of erosion susceptibility for a soil type based
on slope.

Topographic data can be used to further subdivide areas according to slope gradient
range, e.g., zero to 15 percent, 15 to 30 percent, etc. Steeper slopes can be more prone
to erosion processes depending on trail alignment.

2.5.2.1.3 Watercourse Classification – Sensitive Aquatic Resources

Identify watercourses according to constancy of flow and the degree to which they
support aquatic life and riparian species. The following watercourse type definitions are
slightly modified from the 2020 California Forest Practice Rules (Title 14, CCR, Ch. 4,
4.5 and 10) to adjust with consideration for OHV facility management. Individual

20
agencies may use their own nomenclature for watercourse types but should explain
how its naming conventions correspond with the definitions below. These classifications
can then be used in assessing OHV-related erosion impacts on sensitive natural
resources.

• Class I Watercourse: This watercourse can be 1) a fish-bearing stream, where

fish are always or seasonally present, and includes habitat necessary for
spawning and migration; or 2) a domestic water supply, including a spring, on
site or within 100 feet downstream of an area of operations.
• Class II Watercourse: This class of watercourse drainage usually does not flow
continuously throughout the year but does flow for an extended period of time
beyond the rainy season, and so is also called an “intermittent” watercourse.
Pools in this class of drainage may be present throughout the year, providing
habitat for fish or other aquatic species, such as amphibians.
• Class III Watercourse: This type of watercourse usually flows only in response to
adequate rainfall or snowmelt. Consequently, it is often called an “ephemeral”
watercourse. Class III watercourses may show evidence of sediment and debris
transport from past debris flows or high-runoff events.

2.5.2.1.4 Analysis of Watercourse Crossings

An analysis of watercourse crossings can be conducted manually or with the use of

software, such as GIS, DEMs and LIDAR, and is conducted by creating a map that
marks all points where trails and roads cross watercourses. This creates a
watercourse/trail node map which illustrates locations where acute erosion due to poor
watercourse crossing design may be occurring. This enables other empirical analyses,
such as the review of aerial photographs or field observations, to focus on potential
“trouble spots.” Monitor each crossing consistently to determine its performance and the
appropriateness of the crossing design to the crossing setting.

Determine volumetric values necessary for proper watercourse crossing design by

using hydrologic data from stream gauges, weather stations, and snow surveys within
each watershed or sub-watershed. Public entities such as the USGS, NOAA, and DWR
collect this data from many California watersheds. More location-specific data may be
needed, which can be obtained by stream gauging and use of precipitation gauges.
Special methods may be necessary for stream sites in arid areas that rarely (less than
ephemerally) have waterflow.

2.5.2.1.5 Modeling Erosion Potential

Several computer-based erosion prediction models are readily available online and free
of charge to users. Use of erosion prediction models is not required for the development
of a Soil Conservation Plan but can be a valuable tool for analytically identifying
background erosion rates and areas that are prone to erosion. A few of these models
are briefly discussed in Appendix 2, including descriptions of the settings and situations

21
where use of each model would be applicable. More detailed information and
instructions for each model are available online at the web addresses provided.

2.5.2.2 Field Surveys and Visual Inspection

Visual inspection of trail, road, and open riding areas of OHV facilities and collecting
information on problematic conditions is a fundamental approach to informing
management and maintenance needs. Systematic and routinely conducted inspections
which track changes due to use and erosion are most effective and allow identification
of issues as they arise.

2.5.3 Maintenance Planning

Consistent observation, appropriate preventative actions, and timely repairs are the
basis for conducting proper maintenance of trails and roads at an OHV facility. Ensure
appropriate equipment is used for maintenance tasks, from heavy machinery to shovels.
Ensure equipment operators undertaking maintenance activities are sufficiently
experienced, competent, and, qualified to use the requisite equipment.

To ensure consistent, appropriate maintenance is conducted at an OHV facility, a

Maintenance Plan needs to be developed and implemented by the OHV facility
manager. Modify the Maintenance Plan over successive seasons to address chronic
maintenance problems and to respond with changes to maintenance approaches in
some areas of the facility for improved performance from maintenance.

2.5.3.1 Maintenance Planning and Implementation

The assessments described above support the development of a maintenance plan with
data needed to identify areas prone to maintenance issues to meet compliance with the
2020 Standard. Based on maintenance needs, Management Units may be further
delineated, modified, or divided into Management Sub-units. Below are considerations
for developing a maintenance plan and conducting general maintenance activities.

• Considerations in the development and implementation of a Maintenance Plan:

o Ensure the Maintenance Plan provides a process to rectify deficiencies in
trail design or construction, as well as to rectify unsustainable impacts to
the trail, such as unsustainably increased trail use.
o Consistent documentation of observations and fieldwork conducted as
part of an OHV facility Maintenance Plan can form the basis of an ongoing
road and trail monitoring program (discussed in more detail in Section
2.5.4)
o Ensure the Maintenance Plan is available to all pertinent personnel so that
maintenance activities can be coordinated, conducted, and documented
properly.
o Provide documentation of a Maintenance Plan and an example of
documentation of maintenance activities within the SCP.

22
 • Considerations for general maintenance activities
o Conduct maintenance for OHV trails with deference to the skill rating of
the trail. An expert trail may look “ugly,” to the casual observer but this
may be due to features on the trail that qualify it for an expert skill rating.
Maintenance may not be needed on such a trail if it is stable and not
creating drainage or sedimentation problems and is otherwise in
compliance with the 2020 Standard.
o At failed drainage structures, determine the cause of failure before repairs
are initiated. Input from qualified experts is usually required.
o Do not conduct maintenance that compacts soil if soil is too wet or too dry.
o Remove and reuse sediment that has accumulated in trail waterbreak
(e.g., rolling dips, sediment basins/ponds/traps) for other trail structure
needs, such as rebuilding the crests between rolling dip troughs.
o Minimize or eliminate outside berms. However, do not “blade” off the trail
as sidecast. Berm materials should be pulled back and graded into the
trail tread.
o Repair rills and gullies in trail treads with soil reclaimed from waterbreak
outlets and outside berms. Soil should not be scraped from the trail tread
to fill rills and gullies.
o Smoothly grade soil and rock that may have sloughed onto a road or trail
from a roadcut to make a safe trail. In some cases, analysis by a qualified
geologic expert may be needed to determine if removal of the sloughed
material will destabilize the roadcut.
o Conduct repair of “whoops” or “stutter” bumps by ripping the trail tread
and regrading.
o Conduct any road or trail maintenance objective by moving the smallest
amount of soil necessary to meet the objective.
o Evaluate the need for maintenance with mechanical equipment before
equipment is mobilized to the maintenance site.
o Transport maintenance equipment across sections of trail that do not
need maintenance without impacting those sections.

2.5.3.2 Documentation of Maintenance Activities

Documentation of scheduled maintenance activities allows for a more thorough

evaluation of the effectiveness of the maintenance. Tracking basic information with
regard to OHV facility maintenance includes noting the type of equipment used, the
operator of the equipment, the frequency of use, soil moisture, and the weather
conditions at the time of use. Appendix 3 and Appendix 4 of these guidelines present
trail maintenance forms with examples of the type of information to document.
Appropriately trained and qualified earth science professionals, such as soil scientists,
hydrologists, or geologists, should evaluate the effectiveness of maintenance activities
before implementation. DPR and the California Geological Survey have specialists who
can assist with these evaluations.

23
2.5.4 Monitoring Techniques
An important component of monitoring at an OHV facility consists of an assessment that
follows the repair and maintenance efforts undertaken, which were based on an initial
assessment of the OHV facility. These efforts should be documented in the
Maintenance Plan. The purpose of the follow-up assessment is to ensure that all fixes
applied to an OHV facility based on the first assessment are functioning properly.
Perform assessments at the beginning and end of the typical recreation season for the
area.

Specific to SVRAs, PRC 5090.13 stipulates that monitoring programs provide periodic
evaluations of the condition of resources and informs adaptive management.

2.5.4.1 Trail Condition Evaluation

The condition of OHV trails can be systematically evaluated using a version of the Trail
Condition Evaluation Form. The primary purpose of the form is to identify trail segments
that need more focused maintenance or reconditioning. This form can be used for an
initial assessment of the condition of a trail or trail system. Repeated use of the Trail
Condition Evaluation Form will allow for ongoing monitoring of changes in trail
conditions over time. Data collected from the form also provides the basis for a
monitoring program. A generic version of the Trail Condition Evaluation Form can be
found in Appendix 3. General guidance for using the form are listed below.

• Prior to conducting fieldwork to complete the Trail Condition Evaluation Form,

review complete information on management of the OHV facility, the history of
the facility and its trail network, the current trail maintenance schedule and type
of maintenance conducted, trail usage, skill rating assignments, locations of
multiple-use roads, etc.
• Trails are evaluated in segments. A trail segment is defined by the user of the
Trail Condition Evaluation Form as any length that is practical and meaningful for
monitoring.
• Consistently apply criteria for delineating trail segments over the entire trail
network.
• The facility manager is encouraged to develop a series of facility-specific
calibration cards for quality assurance for consistent data entry. These cards
consist of photographs of typical Green (acceptable), Yellow (marginal), and Red
(action needed) conditions that might be found at the facility.
• Staff should pay attention to where the trail is adjacent to or crosses a
watercourse and evaluate trail intersections carefully so that one path is not
negatively affecting the other.
• Off-trail or off-site impacts may require a more detailed evaluation by an
appropriately qualified professional.

Other technologies that could be used, in lieu of a paper forms, for trail assessment
work include aerial or satellite imagery, geographic information system (GIS) software,

24
global positioning system (GPS) devices, and aerial drones for acquiring more detailed
aerial imagery and associated data. When these and similar technologies are employed
however, an unwieldy amount of data may be collected. If the data are not properly
managed and archived, the process of trail assessment based on data collection may
be lost or become confused. Therefore, a system for managing documentation of the
trail assessment data needs to be in place before any field effort to collect data begins.
When employing technology, such as GIS or GPS, to assess the condition of a trail,
staff should reference the Trail Condition Evaluation Form to ensure that staff are
collecting appropriate data.

2.5.4.2 Soil Conservation Plan – Monitoring Section

The SCP should include a monitoring section. The selected monitoring design should fit
the constraints of budgets and staff capabilities for effective and consistent
implementation. The development of a monitoring plan is discussed in subsection
2.5.4.2.

Certain environments and some OHV activities should have monitoring suited to the
specific environment or activity, for example:

• Monitoring Open Ride Areas – Open-ride areas are expansive areas where OHV
use is not limited to specific routes. Almost any portion of an open-ride area may
become impacted by excessive OHV traffic. The following tiered monitoring
approach will allow identification of adverse impacts in and adjacent to the open-
ride area. One or all tiers may be used depending on specific OHV facility needs
and reporting requirements.
o Tier one: Monitoring of the open-ride area. At this level, focus monitoring
on the interaction of the open-ride area and its surrounding non-open-ride
areas.
o Tier two: Monitoring areas of concentrated OHV activity and related use.
At this level, focus monitoring of staging areas, camping areas, and
specific OHV recreation features such (e.g., hill climbs).
o Tier three: Monitoring specific features. At this level, focus monitoring on
specific common riding sections with potential erosion problems,
watercourse crossings, and environmentally sensitive areas, such as
habitat for special status species and sensitive natural communities.
• Monitoring Dunes and Desert Sand Environments – Design monitoring activities
specifically to evaluate impacts of OHVs on sensitive areas within the dune and
desert sand environments and to account for key soil transport factors such as
wind transport of sediment and seasonal deluging from desert washes.
• Monitoring for OHV Special Events and Races – Special events and races at an
OHV facility can strain the infrastructure and natural environment at the facility
because concentrated numbers of people congregate for the events, and in
aggressive, repeated runs may occur on the event courses by competitors and
generate high concentrations of fugitive dust (soil loss). These special events
and races may be either point-to-point routes or closed-loop routes.

25
 Competitions include cross-country races, enduros, dual sports, hare scrambles,
hare-and-hound races, trials riding, rock climbs, obstacle course contests for
four-wheel-drive vehicles, and motocross races on closed-loop courses. Some
monitoring considerations for OHV special events and races include:
o Conduct pre- and post-event inspections and engage staff as special
event course monitors.
o Measure runoff drainage volume and sediment load at fixed facilities, such
as tracks and staging areas. Monitoring results may determine the need
for runoff drainage holding facilities (i.e., sediment basins/ponds/traps).
o Consider recent and forthcoming weather prior to an event. Among other
concerns, it may be necessary to postpone or cancel an event due to
excessive precipitation or wind.
o For temporary facilities, such as cross-country racecourses, monitoring at
select watercourse crossings may be warranted to ensure that adverse
impacts are avoided.
• Air Quality
o The California Air Resources Board website (www.arb.ca.gov) provides
contact information for Air Quality Management Districts and Air Pollution
Control Districts throughout the state. District staff are experts who can
advise on local air quality concerns in the federal and state Clean Air Act
that may apply to OHV areas.
o General mitigation measures may be needed at an OHV area for dust
control depending on proximity to potential receptors. Special attention is
needed at OHV recreation areas that are close to large sensitive
populations of children and elderly with respiratory ailments.
o Careful evaluation of all sources impacting air quality within the region of
an OHV facility, including natural sources such as wind-blown dust, may
be warranted prior to any other consideration. This evaluation is critical to
undertake in areas which are in non-attainment of federal or state Ambient
Air Quality Standards, particularly for PM10 (fugitive dust).

2.5.4.3 Developing a Monitoring Plan

As part of the monitoring protocol, a Monitoring Plan must effectively detect changes in
soil loss at an OHV facility. Concern for air quality and for stormwater quality during and
after a storm event is also critical. The most effective Monitoring Plan employs
consistent, continued assessment of OHV trail and facility conditions. To achieve this,
the Monitoring Plan should stipulate:

• Monitoring Objectives – Ensure the purpose(s) of the monitoring effort is clear.

Monitoring should address objectives to demonstrate that the features of an OHV
facility are functioning properly and do not generate environmental problems at
the facility and beyond its boundaries.
• Monitoring Parameters and Site Selection - The Monitoring Plan stipulates the
features to be monitored, and the approach to monitoring the parameters of
interest. The scope of the monitoring effort should be appropriate to the size,

26
 type, and use of the OHV facility and be manageable within the constraints of
facility staffing and budget.
• Consider the following types of monitoring when developing monitoring
parameters:
o Implementation Monitoring - determines whether activities were conducted
as planned.
o Forensic Monitoring - identifies causes of acute erosion and
sedimentation.
o Effectiveness Monitoring - determines whether design, construction, and
maintenance practices are adequate to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts
such as soil loss and fugitive dust emissions.
o Compliance Monitoring - determines whether land-use activities are in
compliance with applicable regulatory standards.
o Assessment and Trend Monitoring – Consider characterizing existing
conditions, and maintenance planning (as discussed in Section 2.5.3 of
the Guidelines) when scheduling monitoring activities.
• Use Trained and Qualified Personnel - Personnel charged with conducting
monitoring activities may need specific training and qualifications to conduct
specific tasks.
• A Schedule of Monitoring Activities – Specific monitoring activities shall be
scheduled as appropriate with the pattern of visitor use and in concert with OHV
recreation use — quarterly, seasonally, before or after peak use of the OHV
facility, etc. Monitoring activities shall also be prioritized based on potential
detrimental impacts from unnatural erosion and on available personnel.
• General Field Observations – Tour the OHV facility throughout the year to
determine if monitoring schedules need to be modified or if additional features
should be monitored. Observations to determine unnatural erosion are best
made during or shortly after significant weather events, and during peak use of
the OHV facility.
• Monitoring Data – Stipulate the type of data that is to be gathered from the
monitoring activities and how the data are to be collected and recorded.
Appropriate selection and training of monitoring personnel will ensure that data
are collected in a consistent manner.
• Instruction for Appropriate Management of Collected Data – The monitoring plan
should also describe the data management system for monitoring activities—how
collected data will be stored, managed, and accessed for future uses. Databases
are often used as data management systems because they can be customized to
store different types of data and can integrate with GIS software. GIS software
enables versatile geographic representation of collected data. Conduct data entry
into a data management system concurrent to fieldwork or shortly thereafter.
• Photo Point Monitoring – This technique monitors specific trail locations using
photographs. A specifically sensitive area may be chosen for photo point
monitoring. A photograph or photographs, along with the date-taken information,
can be taken to show, in essence, before, during, and after conditions of the
sensitive trail segment. Photos should include the direction of view and a brief

27
 description. In practice, this technique is rarely implemented effectively and
typically results in a collection of photographs with little or no context. If a trail
segment has already been identified as a sensitive location worthy of photo point
monitoring, then the trail design and use should be examined to determine if a
design change or other mitigation is warranted.
• Proper Data Collection Techniques, with Quality Assurance/Quality Control
measures (QA/QC) – stipulate within the Monitoring Plan what type of data is to
be gathered from the monitoring activities and how the data are to be collected
and recorded. Appropriate selection and training of monitoring personnel will
ensure that data is collected in a consistent manner. A small percentage of
duplicate sampling by different individuals (generally about 10 percent) will
provide a QA/QC check on the data collected.

2.5.5 The Compliance Report and Action Plan Portions of a Soil Conservation Plan
A SCP is an iterative document, assembled in multiple stages as a project progresses
from design through completion. The current version of a SCP bridges past and future
SCPs. At its initial stage, a SCP provides a record of assessed conditions within a
defined Project Area or Management Unit, details of the proposed project based on the
assessed conditions, and anticipated activities related to maintenance and monitoring of
the Project to ensure the project will comply with the 2020 Standard. As the Project
progresses, maintenance and monitoring activities should be documented so that a
representative record of those activities can be incorporated into the SCP.

At the completion of a Project for a grantee, or annually for an SVRA, a Compliance

Report is to be prepared and submitted to demonstrate compliance with the SCP. For
SVRA’s the Compliance Report may be specific to MU’s in which ground disturbing
activities took place that year. The intent of the Compliance Report is to document that
any ground disturbing activity has been completed, as specified in the SCP before the
activity was initiated.

The Compliance Report contains within it a responsive Action Plan. The Action Plan
represents a “to do” list of anticipated activities related to the Project and indicates any
likely upcoming Projects involving ground disturbing activities to be conducted within an
OHV facility to ensure compliance with the 2020 Standard. If a Project as specified in
the initial iteration of the SCP is not completed in its entirety, an explanation which
details circumstances that prevented Project completion is to be provided as part of the
Compliance Report. Incomplete aspects of a Project should also be included as
anticipated items to complete as listed in the Action Plan section of the SCP.

Aspects of the Compliance Report and Action Plan portions of a SCP are detailed
below, excerpted from CCR Title 14, Division 3, Chapter 15 of the CCR, subsection
4970.06.3 (h):

(1) Change analysis, such as quantifying trail condition improvements by

contrasting initial and subsequent trail assessments.

28
 (2) Documentation of maintenance activities within the Project
Area/Management Unit.
(3) Documentation of Project Area/Management Unit(s) infrastructure
improvements, such as the repair of a trail watercourse crossing proposed
in the initial Grant Application for grant recipients or proposed by SVRAs.
(4) A Compliance Action Plan, which includes:
(A) A list of planned actions to be taken at an OHV Facility to
guarantee continued adherence to the Soil Conservation Standard,
and
(B) A description of an area or areas within an OHV Facility where
future Projects are likely, including a brief description of the planned
work.

2.6 Considerations for Practice: Project Design and Construction

2.6.1 Previous Land Use and Hazard Consideration

Research reference maps and other data regarding previous land use within and
adjacent to an OHV facility’s boundaries. Previous land use data such as mining
operations, military operations, agricultural activities, and pipeline/utility line construction
provide an important historical record. This information may be important to an OHV
project, particularly if the project requires disturbance of soils, as previous land uses
may not have been designed for long-term sustainable OHV use. Identifying natural
hazards such as potentially hazardous (toxic) minerals (e.g., arsenic, asbestos,
mercury), as well as landslides and active faults, is an important preliminary step to take
when assessing soil-related activities for an OHV project..

Many former land uses and geologically hazardous conditions pose health and safety
concerns. When evaluating lands with potential hazard- and health-related concerns,
the OHV manager should consider retaining the assistance of a specialist trained, and
as appropriate, licensed, to assess the applicable standards. Specialists may be
needed to consider abandoned mine land assessment, hazardous minerals
assessment, industrial hygiene, and unexploded military ordnance. Personnel should
not conduct field evaluations of such lands unless appropriately trained and/or
accompanied by trained personnel familiar with the potential hazards at these types of
facilities. Depending on concerns, evaluations regarding previous land use and hazard
considerations should:

• Identify abandoned mine sites located within and near an OHV facility, including
the excavations, abandoned equipment, and tailings from the mine operations
that may present physical or exposure hazards to OHV users. Mine tailings may
also present special considerations for erosion control and/or environmental
hazards to a watershed.
• Utilize services from a licensed (as legally applicable) geologist or engineering
geologist, with expertise in erosion control, to assist in identifying and assessing
potentially hazardous features, such as landslides and active faults. When

29
 possible, such features are best avoided for the safety of recreation visitors. If
such sites cannot be avoided, then special considerations may be necessary to
comply with applicable state and federal laws to secure the sites from access by
recreation visitors.
• Utilize services from an appropriately trained and, as applicable, licensed
professional to identify and address potentially hazardous minerals, such as
asbestos, arsenic, and mercury. If such areas cannot be avoided, then special
considerations may be necessary to comply with applicable state and federal
laws to secure the sites from access by recreation visitors.
• Identify any industrial operations that used hazardous materials that may remain
on the land, stored underground, or residually reside in the groundwater.
• Identify areas where military operations historically occurred that may contain
hazardous materials and unexploded ordinance.
• Identify past animal grazing and agricultural uses that, where excessive, may
hinder vegetation from becoming established.
• Document the locations of the above features on a map. Include records of what
the land use was, when it occurred, where it occurred, what human and/or
environmental hazards may have been created, and to what extent remediation
was undertaken.
• Indicate whether the previous land use presents a current hazard or concern to
OHV facility operations and erosion control.
• Provide a safety rationale and written record for limiting access in certain areas
of the OHV facility.

2.6.2 OHV Area Visitor Information

OHV area facility managers should have basic information about the visitors who
frequent their OHV areas, ensuring privacy laws are followed while collecting such
information. This information is important to understand how well a facility, and its
design, are meeting the needs of the recreationists. If the facility is designed for the user
with intermediate skills but frequented by expert riders and drivers, volunteer trails may
be created by recreationists looking for more challenging routes. Conversely, the safety
of beginning riders may be in jeopardy when they recreate at a facility designed
predominantly for more skilled riders. To determine skill levels and other demographic
data from the people who visit OHV areas, user information may be obtained in
accordance with applicable state and federal agency policies and procedures.

Regardless of whether survey data are available, consider the following demographic
questions before proposing and implementing an OHV project at an OHV facility:

• What type(s) of vehicles access the project area?

• What is/are the rated skill level(s) of the trails and/or roads where the project is
proposed?
• Are there other activities nearby the project and should the design of the project
consider these activities?

30
 • What is the percentage breakdown of skill levels—beginner, intermediate,
advanced—of the current users of the OHV facility, and how does that compare
to the percentages of corresponding skill-rated trails, roads, and areas at the
facility?
• With regard to staging areas, campgrounds, and parking, what are the
percentages of day users at the OHV facility and the corresponding percentage
of users who stay overnight?
• What are the desired future OHV opportunities at the facility?

2.6.3 Use of Best Available Science within Soil Conservation Plans

Best available science is defined by multiple criteria including relevance, inclusiveness,
objectivity, transparency and openness, timeliness, and peer review (Sullivan et al.
2006, NRC 2011). For science to be relevant, it must be related specifically to the
activity under consideration. Inclusiveness requires that a comprehensive review of
existing information has been completed, using a variety of sources. Best available
science is specific to the management activity, evolves over time, and requires
management activities to be re-evaluated over time. Using best available science
ensures that the most robust information and data inform soil conservation management
activities (Sullivan et al. 2006).

Best available science relies on peer-reviewed research data and information, agency-
published technical reports, best available information obtained from systematic
inventory and monitoring data, and professional expertise and experience (Delta
Stewardship Council 2015, DPR DOM 2004, Ryan et al. 2018).

2.6.3.1 Updating the Soil Standards and Guidelines with Best Available Science

PRC 5090.39(a)(1) requires best available science to be applied to the Standard and
any monitoring program. Development of the 2020 Standard and Guidelines has used
best available science as follows:

• Natural resource managers of State, federal, and local OHV facilities were sent a
survey in January of 2020 to solicit feedback and data on technical and policy
issues for updates to the 2008 Standard and Guidelines document. Survey
responses were documented, summarized, and considered in revisions.
• DPR conducted a literature review to address new technologies and data
available to land managers, and to address the need for more guidance on
design and assessments.
• The 2020 Standard and Guidelines update process included review by the
CARC, and incorporated feedback and revision based on this review.

2.6.4 Critical Existing Resources

The San Diego State University Erosion Control Laboratory, California State University
at San Luis Obispo, and the Shasta College Erosion Control Training Facility are

31
developing and testing new BMPs, especially designed for California. Presented below
are Internet resources, manuals and guides, and peer-reviewed articles that are useful
in planning, design, construction, maintenance and monitoring of OHV areas.

US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration: Publications

(web page). This webpage is provided by the US Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, providing a compilation of publications and other
resources to access trail references. The webpage provides links to trail planning
publications; design, construction, and maintenance guides; US Forest Service
publications; and other recommended publications.

The Link to the US Forest Service Trail Publications include useful documents, such as:

• USFS Trail Construction and Maintenance Notebook Tread, Surface water

control and trail drainage, tread, water crossings Effects of All-Terrain Vehicles
on Forested Lands and Grasslands (USFS) - recreation, including the latest in
OHV technology,
• Geosynthetics for Trails in Wet Areas: 2008 Edition (USFS) Geosynthetic
material evaluation, - example of geoblocks on ATV trail
• Off-Highway Vehicle Trail and Road Grading Equipment (trail construction and
maintenance equipment), - guidance for selecting trail and road grading
equipment

The web page is located at

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/publications/

National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest
System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide, FS-990a (2012). This
technical guide is for the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, National BMP
Program to provide a standard set of core BMPs and methods to track and document
the use and effectiveness of BMPs for water quality. The guide addresses recreation
management activities, such as motorized trails (Rec-4) and motorized vehicle use
areas (Rec-5), and road management activities, such as construction (Road-3),
maintenance (Road-4) and stream crossings (Road-7). The guide also includes
references to relevant USFS manuals, USFS handbooks, and other publications. The
guide is accessible at https://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed

Low-Water Crossings: Geomorphic, Biological, and Engineering Design

Considerations (2006). This publication reviews the advantages and disadvantages of
various low-water crossing structures in different stream environments. The document
also provides numerous illustrations and photographs of low-water crossing designs
and addresses various situations in which low-water crossings may be the ideal choice
of crossing structure. The document is accessible at
https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/LowWaterCrossings/LoWholeDoc.pdf

32
Managing Degraded Off-Highway Vehicle Trails in Wet, Unstable, and Sensitive
Environments, 2E22A68—NPS OHV Management, K.G. Meyer (2002). This
document discusses soil and soil erosion basics, trail condition assessments,
maintenance and monitoring, trail hardening and trail rerouting. This document is
accessible at https://www.fs.fed.us/t-
d/pubs/pdfpubs/pdf02232821/pdf02232821dpi72.pdf

Designing Sustainable Off-Highway Vehicle Trails: An Alaska Trail Manager’s

Perspective, Project number 8E82A76, K.G. Meyer (2013). This document, published
in cooperation between USFS and National Parks Service, provides tools and resources
for the construction and management of OHV trails. It presents a framework for a step-
by-step approach to sustainable OHV trail management, including trail design and
management concepts. The document is accessible at https://www.fs.fed.us/t-
d/php/library_card.php?p_num=1123%202804P

Environmental effects of off-highway vehicles on Bureau of Land Management

lands: A literature synthesis, annotated bibliographies, extensive bibliographies,
and internet resources, Open-File Report 2007-1353 (2007). This report presents a
comprehensive literature and Internet search, conducted by the US Geological Survey
in May 2006, and review of hundreds of peer-reviewed papers, magazine articles,
agency and non-governmental reports, and websites regarding effects of OHV use.
OHV effects on soils, watersheds, vegetation, water quality and air quality are
addressed. Indicators of each OHV effect, as well as mitigation and site-restoration
techniques, were analyzed and are presented in the report. The report is accessible at
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20071353

State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, Off-Highway Motor

Vehicle Recreation Division, OHV BMP Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control
(2007). The manual provides guidance for selecting and implementing best
management practices (BMPs) at OHV Areas. The manual was specifically written for
Carnegie SVRA but offers methods to minimize the impacts of erosion, sedimentation,
and other non-stormwater pollutants on water quality. The manual includes all of the
new, appropriate, and state-of-the-art BMPs as of 2007 and excludes the BMPs that
have proven ineffective. It is accessible at
https://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/25010/files/ca_dpr_ohv-bmp-manual_nov2007.pdf (by
request).

National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council Great Trails: A Guide to

Providing Quality OHV Trail Experiences (2015). This manual is intended to guide
trail managers in OHV trail layout, design, construction and maintenance. The manual is
available for purchase (for non-members) at https://www.nohvcc.org/nohvcc-
initiatives/blm/

Switalski, A. 2018. Off-highway vehicle recreation in drylands: A literature review

and recommendations for best management practices. Journal of Outdoor
Recreation and Tourism 21 (2018) 87–96. In this article, the author reviews BLM

33
travel and resource management plans, BLM Travel and Transportation Management
Hanbook, USFS National Core BMP Technical Guide, and USFW species recovery
plans. Tables 2 through 6 of the article outline BMPs for erosion, vegetation, wildlife,
social impacts, and cultural sites. The article is available at
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221307801830001X?via%3Dihub

Switalski, J. and A. Jones. 2012. Off-road vehicle best management practices for
forestlands: A review of scientific literature and guidance for managers. Journal
of Conservation Planning Vol 8 (2012) 12-24. In this article, the authors review recent
research on the environmental and social effects of OHVs in forested landscapes.
Included are soil compaction and erosion research, stream sedimentation research and
proposed BMPs for soil to minimize OHV impacts. This article is publicly accessible at
https://pdf.wildearthguardians.org/site/DocServer/4%20Off-
road%20vehicle%20best%20management%20practices%20-
%20Switalski%20%26%20Jones.pdf

2.7 Specific Guidance for Project Design and Construction

The purpose of this section is to provide basic design criteria that should be considered
when an OHV Project is proposed and constructed. The intent of all design criteria
discussed is to prevent or limit erosion and to promote soil conservation at OHV
facilities.

2.7.1 Project Design Considerations

The design of an OHV project should not significantly alter or impact the local
watershed where the project is proposed. Watercourses, hill/slope runoff, special status
species, native vegetation, and spread of invasive species should be minimally affected.
To achieve this ideal, design of OHV projects uses the principles of hydrologic invisibility
and hydrologic disconnection.

An OHV project designed with the principles of hydrologic invisibility allows runoff water
to flow in a natural pattern down a slope and across the trail or road tread surface—not
along the tread—as it continues downslope. Thus, a hydrologically invisible trail or road
avoids unnatural concentration of flows and disperses concentrated runoff before it
accumulates to volumes and velocities that can cause erosion. A project designed for
hydrologic disconnection incorporates design elements of hydrologic invisibility on a
network-wide level to ensure that water in a watershed or sub-watershed exits the
watershed basin naturally, at the low point, or mouth, of the basin. Ridge tops and
stream crossings are critical points for maintaining hydrologic disconnection. The lowest
point of any trail or road in a basin should be at the watercourse crossing. If this is not
the case, then the trail or road network has the potential to intercept and divert water
from the natural channel. The highest point of any trail or road that traverses a ridge
should be at the point where the trail or road intersects with the ridgeline. This ensures
that runoff water will still flow away from the ridgeline, keeping adjacent watersheds

34
disconnected. Aspects to consider regarding physical setting and layout of roads and
trails are detailed below.

• OHV Trails and Roads—General Design Considerations

o Design trails and roads to follow the principles of hydrologic invisibility so
that trails and roads are less susceptible to erosion.
o Design features which promote hydrologic invisibility by including
outsloping, rolling tread profiles, and rolling dips.
o Use alternatives that better adhere to the principles of hydrologic
invisibility and disconnection, rather than culverts, inside ditches, and
similar drainage control features that require frequent maintenance and
hinder the sustainability of trails and roads.
o Design trails or roads with varying grades, avoiding sustained uniform
grades, including level or near-level grades. Runoff water will flow along a
sustained grade, gaining velocity, volume, and erosive force.
o Design layout and grade of a trail or road to minimize the creation and size
of cuts made into the natural grade of the landscape (cut-slopes). Consult
an engineer or geologist to determine the suitability and stability of larger,
steeper cut-slopes.
o Design trail and road networks to avoid known unstable areas such as
landslides and earthflows. Trails and roads crossing unstable ground
typically require extraordinary construction and maintenance costs. If an
unstable area is unavoidable, consult an engineer or geologist to
determine proper layout and design of the trail or road.
• Specific Design Considerations - OHV Trails.
Successful trail design integrates numerous factors encompassing visitor
satisfaction, hydrology, trail durability, construction technique, and ease of
maintenance. Trail-specific design considerations include:
o Mix trail types, difficulty, and length to provide visitor satisfaction and
potentially minimize the creation of “volunteer” trails by recreationists.
o Use loop or connecting trails without “dead end” or major velocity changes
at turns that are restricted by hillslopes. Both situations can lead to
volunteer trails and hill climbs departing from these settings.
o Enhance trail durability by routing the trail over erosion resistant soils and
rock.
o Avoid vertically stacked switchbacks that cause cascading erosion and
cumulative sedimentation.
o Avoid layout designs of closely spaced parallel trails to prevent “volunteer”
trails which connect the parallel trails.
• Specific Design Considerations - Multi-Purpose Roads.
Multi-purpose roads within OHV facilities must be usable by a wide range of
vehicles, including general transportation, utility, and emergency vehicles.
Consequently, multi-purpose roads will not typically offer a challenge to the OHV
recreationists as they must be designed to allow efficient conveyance of non-
recreational vehicles. Some design considerations for multi-purpose roads are
listed below.

35
 o Design layout of a multi-purpose road within an OHV for minimal length
while still adhering to the principles of hydrologic invisibility and hydrologic
disconnection.
o Locate multi-purpose roads on the periphery of an OHV area.
o Runoff from a multi-purpose road should not be intercepted by or
otherwise diverted to an OHV road or trail.
o Construct a durable surface for multi-purpose roads. Appropriate surfacing
with crushed rock, or other road base material and amendments improves
load capacity of the road and smooths the running surface of the road.

2.7.2 Designing for Specific (Variable) Environments

Considerations that should be made when designing OHV projects within specific
environments and designing for OHV event activities, such as competitions, are
discussed below.

• Open-Ride Areas - All or part of an OHV facility that does not restrict OHV traffic
to trails and roads is considered an open-ride area. Established routes of travel
often exist or become developed within open-ride areas, but almost any portion
of an open-ride area may become impacted by OHV traffic. Erosion-related
impacts on open-ride areas can be minimized if drainage courses are protected
and sediment is kept within the open area boundaries. Specific design
considerations include:
o Assess, design, and maintain open-ride areas as distinct facilities. The
expectation is that some environmental impact will occur from OHV use
but that such impacts will not extend beyond the boundaries of the open-
ride area.
o Roads and well-defined trails within an open-ride area should be away
from watercourses.
o Delineate and restrict OHV access to sensitive areas, such as habitat for
special status species, sensitive natural communities, and cultural and
paleontological (fossil) sites.
o Identify key monitoring points within the drainage network in an open-ride
area for subsequent monitoring of potential erosion, sedimentation, loss of
riparian habitat or other impact.
o Conduct an erosion potential assessment on an area being considered for
open-ride designation. Conduct a more detailed analysis of areas with
high erosion hazard before considering their use for open riding activities.
If areas of high erosion hazard lie within existing open-ride facilities,
assess through analysis whether OHV traffic should be limited.
o Evaluate the potential for erosion from water, wind, and/or mechanical
forces throughout the facility so that areas receiving concentrated use
within an open-ride area, such as areas near camping and staging, are
located away from areas that are more naturally susceptible to erosion.
• Dunes and Desert Sand Environments - Depending on conditions, dunes and
desert sand environments can be physically and ecologically fragile. Recovery of

36
 these environments, if damaged, can be lengthy. Dune environments vary
depending on the type of dunes that have developed, wind patterns that affect
dune orientation, vegetation diversity, and hydrological conditions. Wind
transport is one of the most important factors in the distribution of natural
communities within dune and desert sand environments. Dunes and relatively
bare areas within desert environments (i.e., sand drifts, blowouts, and wash over
fans) should be managed as dynamic (moving) systems. Evaluate stabilization
measures specific to OHV use prior to implementation so that potential impacts
to these mobile systems is minimized. Other design considerations for OHV
recreation in dune and desert sand environments are presented below.
o Identify the location, type, and extent of dune ecosystems on which an
OHV facility may be located prior to designing the OHV project.
o Assess dune morphology (relative relief, orientation, arrangement, and
relationship of the dune assemblages to the underlying geologic
formations) prior to designing the OHV project.
o Delineate and restrict OHV access to sensitive areas, such as habitat for
special status species, sensitive natural communities, and paleontological
(fossil) sites.
o Identify cultural and natural resources within or adjacent to a dune or
desert environment so that the OHV project can be designed to minimize
impacts to the features.
o Assess potential impacts of OHV use on the dune and desert sand
environments.
o Limit open-ride area OHV activity in vegetated areas.
o Minimize the size and number of parking areas, campsites, and access
routes to reduce potential impact to the environment. Place these OHV
facility features on naturally flatter areas to minimize grading.
• Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones - To limit the amount of sediment that is
introduced into watercourses, protection zones may be used for limiting OHV
activity within the riparian corridor of watercourses, and in other wetland areas,
such as springs. Guidance for selecting the appropriate protection zone width is
outlined in the 2020 California Forest Practice Rules (CDFFP 2020), but
additional factors may need to be considered in other environment types, such as
in deserts, chaparral, and dunes. In summary:
o Class I Watercourse Protection Zone:
 <30% slope advises a 75-foot-wide protection zone from the
closest edge of the watercourse channel.
 30-50% slope advises a 100-foot-wide protection zone from the
outermost bank of the watercourse channel.
 >50% slope advises a 150-foot-wide protection zone from the
outermost bank of the watercourse channel.
o Class II Watercourse Protection Zone:
 <30% slope advises a 50-foot-wide protection zone from the
outermost bank of the watercourse channel.
 30-50% slope advises a 75-foot-wide protection zone from the
outermost bank of the watercourse channel.

37
  >50% slope advises a 100-foot-wide protection zone from the
outermost bank of the watercourse channel.
o Class III Watercourse and other wet areas Protection Zone: width of
projection zone varies per project. Protection zone measures may be
defined by the OHV facility manager or a designated specialist and
implemented when the watercourse is visibly flowing (more restrictive) and
when it is not flowing (less restrictive). If avoiding a wet area is
impractical, then a raised causeway, such as a puncheon structure, may
be appropriate. Review section 1.3 for other applicable statues and
regulations as they relate to watercourse and lake protections zones.

Protection zones should be considered when designing new trails or watercourse

crossings and in addressing problematic sections of existing trails. Note that the
Protection Zone widths listed are not intended for OHVs on approach to
designated watercourse crossings. These protection zone widths are presented
as guidelines for protecting watercourses from sediment which may discharge
from trails and roads that run parallel or sub parallel to watercourses. It may be
appropriate to narrow or broaden the protection zones depending on the
geomorphology of the watercourse banks, and the topographic and vegetative
buffers between the pathway and watercourse. If the protection zones are
modified from the recommended widths, the modifications should be technically
justifiable based on an assessment of the watercourse bank morphology and any
other pertinent local conditions.
• OHV Hill Climbs - A “hill climb” in an OHV area is a trail leading straight up a
steep slope. Hill climbs generally have gradients of 50 percent or more. Hill
climbs are generally 125 feet or more in length and eight to 20 feet wide. Erosion
can occur on hill climbs in areas where soils are poorly consolidated and where
exposed bedrock, such as decomposed granite, is friable and erodes easily.
Design considerations for hill climbs include the following:
o Place hill climbs on soil or bedrock units that are resistant to erosion.
o Place no more than two hill climbs every 100 horizontal feet of slope face,
as physical setting allows.
o Place the approach to the hill climb on a relatively flat area, and place the
“top” of the hill climb at least 20 feet below the crest of the slope.
o Ensure runoff drainage does not funnel towards the top of any hill climb.
o Place hill climbs in such a way that any runoff drainage that may flow
down the hill climb does not flow directly into adjacent watercourses.
o Design hill climb topography and other physical conditions in a way that
allows for soil that is eroded from a hill climb to deposit on the landscape
no further than 500 feet from the base of the hill climb. These eroded
materials can be used for hill climb repair, if necessary.
o Close hill climbs that are not managed for sustained use to OHV
recreation and rehabilitated, as per PRC 5090.02(c).
• OHV Routes for Special Events and Races - The OHV courses for special events
and races are designed as either point-to-point routes or closed-loop routes.
Some OHV areas have training facilities for these events that may also be used

38
 for the competitions. Other courses are built specifically for an event. Some
considerations when designing OHV routes for special events and races include:
o Design facilities with consideration of prevailing wind direction, sun
angles, noise, and anticipated crowds.
o Design facilities to keep displaced soils, fugitive dust, erosion, and
sedimentation on site.
o For cross-country events, clearly mark designated routes with barrier tape.
Use exclusion fencing to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Remove
route markers and fencing at the conclusion of events.
o After an event, regrade and restore any temporary tracks to restore
natural drainage patterns, and restore native vegetation, if necessary.

2.7.3 Project Design Features

An OHV project is a mix of different design features. Determining which features to
incorporate depends on the management objective(s) for that project. Different design
features are presented below, along with criteria to consider when incorporating these
features into a project.

• Trail Tread Design

o Base the width of trail tread for OHV recreation on the type of vehicle
expected on the trail (motorcycle, ATV, 4x4), the intended skill rating for
the trail (less skilled operators require a wider tread for safety), and the
topography on which the trail or road will be graded. Recreational Off-
Highway Vehicles (ROVs) tread widths can vary depending upon the
make/model and range between 4x4 and ATV tread width. Typical
recommended widths are:

DESIGNATED USE TREAD WIDTH (INCHES)

Motorcycle - most difficult 12 – 18
Motorcycle – more difficult 18 – 24
Motorcycle – easiest 24 – 30
ATV - most difficult 48 – 60
ATV – more difficult 60 – 72
ATV – easiest 72 – 86
4X4 - most difficult 72 – 84
4X4 – more difficult 84 – 96
4X4 – easiest 96 -120

o To achieve desired trail tread width, the following grading practices, are
recommended based on adjacent topography:
 Integrate the trail tread with designed drainage control measures to
retain hydrologic invisibility and hydrologic disconnection.
 Ensure hydrologic invisibility by not allowing the trail tread to be
insloped. Insloped trails capture runoff and promote erosion.

39
  Trail tread subject to high usage and/or other potentially intense
erosive forces can be protected by treating with a soil amendment
and/or armoring with hardened materials such as properly installed
paver stones, gravel, or native rock.
 Because berms are likely to form on the outside edge of a trail,
perform periodic maintenance measures to breach the berm at
regular intervals or grade the berm material back into the trail tread.
• Rolling Profile
o The primary benefit of a rolling profile is that it prevents long steady trail
grades which capture and convey runoff which would allow runoff
drainage to flow, gaining volume, velocity, and erosive force.
o Inclusion and placement of the crests and troughs of the rolling profile is a
primary design decision made when a trail or road network is planned for
construction or realignment. Troughs in a rolling trail profile are ideal
locations for drain dip outlets.
o Local topography, as well as natural features such as rock outcrops and
logs, can be used as “pivot points” on the trail layout, making the trail more
interesting and challenging to the OHV recreationist, reducing the
temptation to create “volunteer” trails.
• Rolling Dips
o Rolling dips are broad undulations graded into a trail or road. Rolling dips
may be built into a new trail or road or retrofitted to an existing one. They
are usually placed in a series of descending side paths so that runoff
volume is sufficiently dispersed off the path.
o Reinforcement measures, such as rock armoring, can be used at the
rolling dip trough outlet to minimize erosion.
o Rolling dips are used for drainage control and should not be considered as
features for OHV recreation. They are not intended as jumps for OHVs.
Ideally, the trough length of a rolling dip is long enough so that spinning
wheels of OHVs do not gouge the trail tread and alter the effectiveness of
the rolling dip. Many factors dictate the appropriate spacing and
dimensions of rolling dips, road steepness being the most important. The
speed of OHV traffic on a trail is also important. Design of rolling dips
dimensions should generally be more elongated with faster traffic. As a
general rule, rolling dip troughs should be at least as long as the average
wheelbase of vehicles on the trail or road. For example, if a trail is
intended for motorcycles only, and the typical motorcycle wheelbase is 55
inches, then the trough flat on a rolling dip should be approximately 55
inches.
o Rolling dips are nearly always installed in series so that any one rolling dip
is not diverting too much runoff, which may lead to an additional problem
of concentrated erosion.
• Waterbreaks
o A waterbreak is a design feature that diverts concentrated water from a
trail or road tread. It may be a ditch, dike, or dip, or a combination thereof,
which is constructed diagonally across the trail or road so that water flow

40
 is effectively diverted from the tread. An evaluation of the conditions that
caused the acute erosion is essential before installing waterbreaks. Many
times, a water diversionary structure placed strategically on or adjacent to
the trail path at the top of a slope can mitigate the problem. The spinning
wheels of OHVs eventually obliterate the waterbreaks.
o Install waterbreaks in a series so that any one waterbreak is not diverting
too much runoff. Excessive runoff at any one location may lead to an
additional erosion problem.
o Construct durable waterbreaks by mixing soil with rock in the waterbreak
core and/or adding a soil amendment such as cement or bentonite.
Waterbreaks may also be hardened by positioning pre-formed concrete
blocks known as “dogbones”, along the waterbreak crests. On- site
materials, such as rock or timber, can be used if sufficient amounts of soil
are unavailable.
o Installation of flexible waterbreaks may be appropriate for some trail
conditions.
• Drain Dips
o A drain dip is a section of the trail that is tilted to a greater extent to
facilitate runoff drainage, and are usually cut into the grade of an existing
trail or road.
o Drain dips are typically used on low gradient trails. Use of drain dips can
be a very effective drainage control measure on incised trails or roads,
o Use drain dips where trails run into a swale or hollow in the landscape to
promote hydrologic invisibility.
o Ensure that drain dips are routinely monitored and maintained for
effectiveness.
• Climbing Turns
o Design trails to avoid cascading erosion and cumulative sedimentation.
Avoid trails with vertically stacked switchbacks, instead employ climbing
turns. Climbing turns differ from switchbacks in that they have a larger
radius of turn (10 feet or more), with gradients up to 25 percent.
o Climbing turns are designed with as large a radius as is practicable. The
larger the turn radius, the greater the separation distance between upper
and lower limbs of the turn. This provides more ground for dispersing
drainage.
o Climbing turns are typically banked. Divert trail drainage that flows around
the banked turns from the trail tread immediately above and below the
turn, where the trail section between turns is relatively straight. Sufficiently
disperse the drainage diverted off-trail so that the drainage does not flow
onto any lower portion of trail.
o Place sequential climbing turns so that the trail grade climbs a slope
laterally.
o Design climbing turns to minimize excavation and cut-slope exposure.
• Watercourse Crossings

41
 o A properly designed watercourse crossing allows water to remain in the
watercourse and does not alter, or only slightly alters, the gradient of the
watercourse at the crossing.
o Design the trail at the watercourse crossing to be lower than the trail
segments that approach the crossing on either side, adhering to the
principal of hydrologic disconnection discussed earlier.
o There are many watercourse crossing designs, such as rocked fords,
articulated concrete blocks/matting, culverts and bridges. Each
watercourse crossing must be designed based on the anticipated flood
flows of the watercourse it crosses, and, as appropriate, for the passage
of aquatic and terrestrial species. Not all designs are appropriate for any
single crossing.
o Design approaches to watercourse crossings according to the principles of
hydrologic invisibility and hydrologic disconnection to minimize sediment
delivery to the watercourses. Incorporate adequate drainage features such
as grade breaks, outsloping, waterbreaks, and rolling dips on each
approach limb so that runoff water is diverted off-trail and not conveyed
along the path to the watercourse. The approaches should not be incised.
• Sediment Basins/Ponds
o Each sediment basin design must consider the particular site conditions,
soil type, drainage area, potential sediment generated, rainfall, runoff and
damage potential downstream.
 Determine basin size for the entire catchment to the basin, not just
the disturbed area.
 Inflow must be directed into the upper end of the basin to prevent
“short circuiting”.
 Make the basin twice as long as wide (except for small basins).
Then use baffles, peninsulas, or chambers to increase the L:W ratio
to > 5:1.
 Maximize surface area; shallow depth maximizes trapping
efficiency and keeps sediment away from the skimmer.
o A skimmer will control filling and draining of the basin and help to utilize
the surface area and volume to create conditions that will maximize
sedimentation.
o Carefully consider pond design and baffle placement so that equipment
can safely and easily access the pond for removing accumulated
sediment.
o Location of stockpiled sediment after clean-out also needs consideration
during the planning and design phase.
• Parking Areas, Staging Areas, and Other Large Surface Areas
o Parking lots, staging areas, campgrounds and picnic areas, pits at race
tracks, and maintenance facilities all have large surface areas which must
be drained without causing erosion or excessive soil loss.
o Options to prevent or limit erosion of a large surface area include:
 Compaction of earth materials - This option entails scarifying the
native surface, applying water to the earth materials as needed for

42
 proper compaction of soil, and compacting the soil to an
engineering standard based on anticipated loads of the surface
area. Typically, soil is compacted to at least 90 percent of the soil’s
maximum density.
 Paving - This option is expensive and not appropriate for many
settings. Areas to be paved are usually prepared by compaction of
earth materials as described above. A compacted crushed rock
cover is also applied to the surface before paving if traffic load is
anticipated to be heavy.
 Crushed rock cover - This option is slightly more aesthetic than
paving, and cheaper and more easily applied to different settings.
Native surface areas may or may not be compacted prior to being
covered with crushed rock.
o Regardless of the surface area treatment chosen, surface runoff should
not accumulate excessively anywhere as concentrated flow.
o Design drainage of the surface area to incorporate multiple drainage
swales to disperse runoff to multiple locations around the open area.
o Place rock armor on runoff conveyance and discharge points to avoid
erosion during storm events.
o Use land surfaces that slope gently away from large surface areas to
disperse surface area runoff.
o Consider constructing a runoff control feature, such as a man-made
containment or filtering feature, if natural land surfaces suitable for
dispersing runoff water are not in the vicinity of the large surface area.
o Runoff that is discharged to a watercourse may require, at a minimum, a
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or
waiver.

2.7.4 Construction Practices

Appropriate construction procedures and techniques are required when constructing an
OHV project to ensure that the project is sustainable and minimally impacts the
environment. Important elements to incorporate in the construction of an OHV project
are discussed below.

• Construction Equipment
o Choose equipment and machinery for trail-specific needs.
o Bull dozers, loaders, road graders and other heavy machinery intended for
large-scale earth-moving may not be appropriate for trail construction or
maintenance.
o Specialized earthmoving equipment, scaled for narrow access, is available
for OHV trail construction and maintenance projects. A good overview of
specialized equipment is presented in Gonzales (1996).
o Ensure that personnel operating machinery are sufficiently experienced,
competent, and, as appropriate, certified in the use of the machinery.

43
 o Experienced personnel using shovels and other hand tools may be the
most appropriate choice for trail construction in some settings.
• Plan Documentation and Construction Control
o Keep at least one field copy of the plans for the OHV project on site and
available for reference by the construction crew and others, as needed,
during all phases of construction.
o Survey and delineate all sensitive areas, such as habitat for special status
species, sensitive natural communities, and paleontological (fossil) sites,
prior to project activities. Identified sensitive areas shall be avoided.
o As-built documentation for a project, including as-built plans, shall be
prepared and compiled following completion of the project. Include
reasons for changes made to the original design in the as-built
documentation.
o Stake or flag the intended alignment of the path for the grading of a new
OHV road or trail. Survey the proposed trail grade elevation and note with
stakes or flagging. Ensure the equipment operator reviews the staked or
flagged alignment if machinery is to be used. Discrepancies between the
planned path and actual geography can be visualized with the stakes or
flagging, and modifications, if needed, can be made before grading is
underway.
o Stake and flag proposed watercourse crossings prior to grading and
construction. Key elements of a watercourse crossing to stake include
path approach to crossing, path width through crossing, path low point,
gradient across path at crossing point, foundation locations if planned (i.e.,
bridge). The need for plan modifications can then be discerned before any
materials are disturbed. Note modifications for as-built documentation
purposes.
o The OHV facility manager is responsible for updating and maintaining
plans and associated documents. This documentation will assist in
verifying compliance with the 2020 Standard.
• Compaction of Earth Materials
o The degree to which earth materials can be compacted is a function of soil
type, soil moisture content, and compaction effort.
o A natural surface that is to be compacted for construction purposes, and
which may receive fill for compaction, must first be prepared prior to fill
placement. Preparation, at a minimum, includes removing ground
vegetation such as brush and grass and excavating below the roots of
such plants. Soil that has abundant vegetative matter mixed with it should
not be used as fill.
o Assess the moisture content of the soil, prior to compaction, to determine
if the soil moisture is at or near optimum for compaction purposes.
o Soil will not compact if it is too wet or too dry. An informal method to
determine if soil moisture content in a non-rocky soil is near optimum for
compaction is to squeeze a handful of the soil. If the handful of soil
becomes a clod that holds its shape and can be broken into two halves,
moisture content is near optimum for compaction purposes. If the clod

44
 crumbles into several pieces, the soil is too dry. If the soil oozes through
the fingers, the soil is too wet.
o Examine soil moisture at several locations and depths. Under field
conditions, soil moisture will vary by soil type, depth, and location.
o Take into account slope angle and orientation, elevation, vegetation,
shading, and surface drainage as they also influence soil moisture
content.
o Soils that consist predominantly of sand, or sand and rock, lack cohesion
and so the above soil moisture test is not effective for these materials.
Nonetheless, these soils drain well and compact well if used to fill a void,
such as a steep-sided excavation.
o Do not use sand or sandy soil with rock for trail tread surfaces because
the materials lack cohesion.
o Scarify and compact the exposed surface to be compacted using
appropriate equipment, such as a sheep’s foot roller, the tire tread or track
of heavy equipment, or vibrating pad backhoe attachment, assuming soil
moisture is optimum.
o For the placement of compacted fill over a prepared surface, spread fill
soil at or near its optimum moisture content onto the surface in “lifts” of six
to eight inches, and compact using appropriate equipment as described
above.
o Soil in lifts thicker than eight inches may not be compacted throughout the
lift thickness. Lifts that are too thick can “bridge,” where only the upper
portion of the lift compacts. Over time, and with OHV traffic, fill with
“bridged” lifts will settle, causing misalignment of the trail and low points,
which create chronic drainage problems.
o Soil compaction of each lift can be evaluated qualitatively and
quantitatively. Compaction can be measured qualitatively using a soil
probe or an L-shaped, two- to three-foot length of quarter-inch diameter
steel rebar. The probe tip or rebar end at the top of the “L” is placed on the
compacted soil surface. The person inspecting the fill compaction leans
heavily on the probe crossbar or on the rebar. If the tip sinks more than 3
to 5 inches the fill should be excavated, moistened as needed, placed as a
lift and recompacted.
o Quantitative compaction testing entails first determining the maximum
density of the soil that is compacted and then comparing that density with
the density of the soil compacted in the field. Quantitative compaction
testing of this sort requires use of equipment specified by the American
Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) and is usually performed under
the supervision of a qualified engineering geologist or engineer. OHV trail
projects in general do not need this level of compaction testing, but site
conditions and proposed fill thicknesses may necessitate the supervision
of a qualified professional and compaction testing according to ASTM
standards.
o Haul excess soil materials to a suitable, stable location that is not directly
upslope from a watercourse or other water body.

45
o Earth materials shall not be cast over the downslope side of any trail or
road.

46
Reference List
Ballantyne, M. and C.M. Pickering. 2015. The impacts of trail infrastructure on
vegetation and soils: Current literature and future directions. Journal of
Environmental Management 164 (2015) 53-64.

Bardi, F., W. Frodellaa, A. Ciampalinia, S. Bianchinia, C.D. Ventisettea, G. Giglia, R.

Fantia, S. Morettia, G. Basileb, and N. Casagli. 2014. Integration between ground
based and satellite SAR data in landslidemapping: The San Fratello case study.
Geomorphology 223 (2014) 45–60.

Bargiel, D., S. Herrmann, and J. Jadczyszyn. 2013. Using high-resolution radar images
to determine vegetation cover for soil erosion assessments. Journal of
Environmental Management 124 (2013) 82-90.

Brooks, M.L. and B. Lair. 2005. Ecological Effects of Vehicular Routes in a Desert
Ecosystem. U.S. Geologic Survey (2005).

California Department of Parks and Recreation, Off-highway Motor Vehicle Recreation

Division. 2008 Soil Conservation Standard and Guidelines (2008).

California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation. Trails

Handbook (2019).

Chappell, A., N.P. Webb, J.P. Guerschman, Dean T. Thomas, G. Mata, R.N. Handcock,
J.F. Leys, and H.J. Butler. 2018. Improving ground cover monitoring for wind erosion
assessment using MODIS BRDF parameters. Remote Sensing of Environment 204
(2018) 756–768.

Ciampalini, A., F. Raspini, D. Lagomarsino, F. Catani, and N. Casagli, 2016, Landslide

susceptibility map refinement using PSInSAR data, Remote Sensing of Environment
184 (2016) 302–315.

Custer, N.A., L.A. DeFalco, K.E. Nussear, and T.C. Esque. 2017. Drawing a line in the
sand: Effectiveness of off-highway vehicle management in California's Sonoran
Desert. Journal of Environmental Management 193 (2017) 448-457.

D’Antonio, A., C. Monz, P. Newmanc, S. Lawson, and D. Taff. 2013. Enhancing the
utility of visitor impact assessment in parks and protected areas: A combined social-
ecological approach. Journal of Environmental Management 124 (2013) 72-81.

Delta Stewardship Council. 2013.  The Delta Plan: Ensuring a reliable water supply for
California, a healthy Delta ecosystem, and a place of enduring value (Appendix 1A
Best Available Science).

47
Eagleston, H. and J.L. Marion. 2020. Application of airborne LiDAR and GIS in modeling
trail erosion along the Appalachian Trail in New Hampshire, USA. Landscape and
Urban Planning 198 (2020) 103765.

Goossen, D. and B. Buck. 2011. Effects of wind erosion, off-road vehicular activity,
atmospheric conditions and the proximity of a metropolitan area on PM10
characteristics in a recreational site. Aeolian Research Volume 45, Issue 1, January
2011, Pages 94-107.

Happe, P.J.; Shea, K.E.; Loya, W.M. 1998. Assessment of all-terrain vehicle (ATV)
impacts: within Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, Alaska. Unpublished
Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve Research and Resource
Management Report No. 98-1. Copper Center, AK: U.S. Department of the Interior,
Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve.

Helman, D. and A. Mussery. 2020. Using Landsat satellites to assess the impact of
check dams built across erosive gullies on vegetation rehabilitation. Science of the
Total Environment 730 (2020) 138873.

"Marion, J.L. and J. Wimpey. 2017. Assessing the influence of sustainable trail design
and maintenance on soil loss. Journal of Environmental Management 189 (2017)
46-57."

Marion, D.A, J.D. Phillips, C. Yocum, and S.H. Mehlhope. 2014. Stream channel
responses and soil loss at off-highway vehicle stream crossings in the Ouachita
National Forest. Geomorphology 216 (2014) 40–52.

Marion, J.L. and Y.F. Leung. 2004. Environmentally Sustainable Trail Management.
Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism, Chapter 13 (2004) 229-243. CAB
International (ed. R. Buckley).

Meinen, B.U. and D.T. Robinson. 2020. Mapping erosion and deposition in an
agricultural landscape: Optimization of UAV image acquisition schemes for SfM-
MVS. Remote Sensing of Environment 239 (2020) 111666.

National Research Council, Committee on Defining the Best Scientific Information

Available for Fisheries Management. 2004. Improving the use of “Best Scientific
Information Available” Standard in Fisheries Management. National Academy Press,
Washington D.C. Available from
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11045#toc. Accessed June 2011.

"Olive, N.D. and J.L. Marion. 2009. The influence of use-related, environmental, and
managerial factors on soil loss from recreational trails. Journal of Environmental
Management 90 (2009) 1483–1493."

48
Phillips, J.D. and D.A. Marion. 2019. Coarse sediment storage and connectivity and off-
highway vehicle use, Board Camp Creek, Arkansas. Geomorphology, Volume 344, 1
November 2019, Pages 99-112.

Ryan, C.M., L.K. Cerveny, T.L. Robinson, and D.J. Blahna.  2018.  Implementing the
2012 Forest Planning Rule:  Best Available Scientific Information in Forest Planning
Assessments.  Forest Science 64(2):159–169. 
https://academic.oup.com/forestscience/article-abstract/64/2/159/4916903 accessed
May 2020.

Salesa, D., A. Minervino Amodio, C.M. Rosskopf, V. Garfìb, E. Terol, and A. Cerda.
2020. Three topographical approaches to survey soil erosion on a mountain trail
affected by a forest fire. Barranc de la Manesa, Llutxent, Eastern Iberian Peninsula.
Journal of Environmental Management 264 (2020) 110491.

Stumpf, A., J.P. Maleta, and C. Delacourt. 2017. Correlation of satellite image time-
series for the detection and monitoringof slow-moving landslides. Remote Sensing of
Environment 189 (2017) 40–55.

Sullivan, P. J., J. M. Acheson, P. L. Angermeier, T. Faast, J. Flemma, C. M. Jones, E.

E. Knudsen, T. J. Minello, D. H. Secor, R. Wunderlich, and B. A. Zanetell. 2006.
Defining and implementing best available science for fisheries and environmental
science, policy, and management. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland,
and Estuarine Research Federation, Port Republic, Maryland. Available at
http://www.fisheries.org/afs/docs/policy_science.pdf. Accessed June 2011.

Switalski, A. 2018. Off-highway vehicle recreation in drylands: A literature review and

recommendations for best management practices. Journal of Outdoor Recreation
and Tourism 21 (2018) 87–96.

Switalski, J. and A. Jones. 2012. Off-road vehicle best management practices for
forestlands: A review of scientific literature and guidance for managers. Journal of
Conservation Planning Vol 8 (2012) 12-24.

Tomczyk, A.M., P.C.L. White, and M.W. Ewertowski. 2016. Effects of extreme natural
events on the provision of ecosystem services in a mountain environment: The
importance of trail design in delivering system resilience and ecosystem service co-
benefits. Journal of Environmental Management 166 (2016) 156-167.

Traglia, F.D., T. Nolesini, A. Ciampalini, L. Solari, W. Frodella, F. Bellotti, A. Fumagalli,

G.D. Rosa, N. Casagli. 2018. Tracking morphological changes and slope instability
using spaceborneand ground-based SAR data. Geomorphology 300 (2018) 95–112.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USBLM). 2001.
National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public
Lands. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Washington,

49
 DC. Accessible at
https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/320/National%20OHV%20Strategy.pdf.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2007. Environmental Effects of Off-Highway

Vehicles on Bureau of Land Management Lands: A Literature Synthesis, Annotated
Bibliographies, Extensive Bibliographies, and Internet Resources. U.S. Geological
Survey, Reston, Virginia. Open-File Report 2007-1353. Accessible at
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20071353.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). 1998. Off-Highway

Vehicle Trail and Road Grading Equipment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Technology & Development Program. Document No. 9823-2837-MTDC.
Available at
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/publications/fs_publication
s/98232837/index.cfm. Accessed April 2020.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). 2002. Managing

Degraded Off-Highway Vehicle Trails in Wet, Unstable, and Sensitive Environments.
Missoula Technology and Development Center. Report 2E22A68—NPS OHV
Management

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2006. Low-Water Crossings: Geomorphic,

Biological, and Engineering Design Considerations. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Technology & Development Program. Document No. 0625 1808—
SDTDC. Accessed at
https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/LowWaterCrossings/LoWholeDoc.pdf.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). 2007. Trail

Construction and Maintenance Notebook - 2007 Edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Technology & Development Program. Document No.
0723-2806-MTDC. Available at
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/publications/fs_publication
s/07232806/. Accessed April 2020.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). 2008. Effects of All-
Terrain Vehicles on Forested Lands and Grasslands. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Technology & Development Program. Document No.
0823 1811—SDTDC. Accessible at
https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/ATV/lo%20res.html.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). 2012. National Best
Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System
Lands: Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, National Best Management Practices (BMP) Program.
FS-990a.

50
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Designing
Sustainable Off-Highway Vehicle Trails: An Alaska Trail Manager’s Perspective.
Missoula Technology and Development Center. Project No. 8E82A76; Document
No. 123-2804P-MTDC. Accessible at https://www.fs.fed.us/t-
d/php/library_card.php?p_num=1123%202804P.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP). 2020. California
Forest Practice Rules 2020. Accessible at https://bof.fire.ca.gov/media/9478/2020-
forest-practice-rules-and-act_final_ada.pdf

Walter, T.R., J. Salzer, N. Varley, C. Navarro, R. Arámbula-Mendoza, and D. Vargas-

Bracamontes. 2018. Localized and distributed erosion triggered by the 2015
Hurricane Patricia investigated by repeated drone surveys and time lapse cameras
at Volcán de Colima, Mexico. Geomorphology 319 (2018) 186–198.

Webb, N.P., E. Kachergis, S.W. Millerb, S.E. McCord, B.T. Bestelmeyer, J.R. Brown, A.
Chappell, B.L. Edwards, J.E. Herrick, J.W. Karl, J.F. Leys, L.J. Metz, S. Smarik, J.
Tatarko, J.W. Van Zee, and G. Zwicke. 2020. Indicators and benchmarks for wind
erosion monitoring, assessment and management. Ecological Indicators 110 (2020)
105881.

Qin Wei, Q., G. Qiankun, C. Wenhong, Y. Zhe, Y. Qinghong, S. Zhijie, and Z. Fenli.
2018. A new RUSLE slope length factor and its application to soil erosion
assessment in a Loess Plateau watershed. Soil & Tillage Research 182 (2018) 10–
24.

Wimpey, J. and J.L. Marion. 2011. A spatial exploration of informal trail networks within
Great Falls Park, VA. Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 1012-1022.

Wu, K., G.A. Rodriguez, M. Zajc, E. Jacquemin, M. Clément, A. De Coster, and S.

Lambot. 2019. A new drone-borne GPR for soil moisture mapping.

51
Appendix 1 – Definitions
All Terrain Vehicle (ATV): Any vehicle as defined by California Vehicle Code
Section 111.
Beneficial Use: Uses of water as defined by Section 13050(f) of the Water Code and as
described in the applicable Water Quality Control Plan. (FPRs, 2005, Title 14
CCR 895.1)
Best Management Practices (BMPs): Methods, measures, or practices selected by an
agency to meet its non-point source control needs. BMPs include but are not limited
to structural and nonstructural controls and operation and maintenance procedures.
BMPs can be applied before, during, or after pollution-producing activities to reduce
or eliminate the introduction of pollutants into receiving waters. (Ruffolo, 1999,
California Research Bureau, California State Library)
Buffer: Land or physical barriers acquired or established contiguous to, or in the vicinity
of, existing or proposed off-highway motor vehicle recreational activities to protect
plant and wildlife habitat, soils, view sheds, or reduce noise and other effects on
development in the surrounding areas for the purpose of sustaining off-highway
motor vehicle recreation use.
CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code (PRC)
Section 21000 et seq.; Title 14, CCR Article 20. CCR 4970.
Conservation: Activities, practices, and programs that sustain soil, plants, wildlife and
their habitat, and natural and cultural resources as referenced in PRC
Sections 5090.10, 5090.35, and 5090.50.
Construction: The act of building or assembling using different parts, materials, or
elements in an ordered manner including, but not limited to physical barriers, trail
building, roads, facilities, hardening of stream crossings, fencing, sediment control
structures, and facilities landscaping.
Cultural Resources: Resources associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; are
associated with the lives of persons important in our past; embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the
work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or has
yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Cultural resources also include Historical Resources. A resource shall be considered
by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for
listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. PRC Section 5024.1, Title
14 CCR, Section 4852.
Erosion: The wearing away of rock or soil by the detachment of soil or rock fragments
by water, wind, ice, and other mechanical and chemical forces. (CDPR 2008)

52
Erosion Controls: Drainage facilities, soil stabilization treatments, road and landing
(parking) area abandonment, removal and treatment of watercourse crossings, and
any other features or actions to reduce surface erosion, gullying, channel erosion
and mass erosion. (FPRs, 2005, CCR 895.1 Definitions)
Facility: An OHV trail, track, road, corridor, SVRA, open-ride area, staging area, parking
area (excluding structures). (CDPR 2008)
Grant: An award of funding to a local agency, educational institution or nonprofit
organization.
Ground Disturbing Activity: any earth moving Project-related activity. The act of
installing and/or replacing a sign, placing of boulders or other materials (other than
fencing) to delineate a Facility, maintenance or replacement of existing fence lines
that do not require disturbance beyond replacement of fence posts and wire or
existing component, or sweeping sand/dirt from a paved road are not considered a
“Ground Disturbing Activity”. (14 CCR 4970.01)
Gully: An erosion channel cut into the soil along a line of water flow with a minimum
depth of 6 inches and cross-sectional area of one square foot. (Schwab et al, 1993,
Soil and Water Engineering USDA, 1993, Soil Survey Manual; USDA, 1993, Soil
Survey Manual; and CDF Hillslope Monitoring Study)
Gully Erosion: Erosion of soil or soft rock materials by running water that forms distinct
channels generally greater than 6 inches deep and that usually carry water only
during and immediately after heavy rains or following the melting of ice or snow.
(Modified from American Geological Institute, Glossary of Geology and CDF
Hillslope Monitoring Study)
Long-Term: At a minimum, 25 years (CCR 4970, 2005).
Maintenance: The work required to ensure effective and efficient use of physical
facilities, OHV recreational opportunities, and the protection of natural and cultural
resources.
Management: The coordinated implementation of budgeting, staffing, scheduling,
design, construction, maintenance, monitoring and restoration activities at an OHV
facility, as needed, combined with the effective utilization and coordination of
resources, such as capital, labor, materials, and natural landscape, to achieve the
soil conservation standard, and to ensure effective and efficient use of OHV
recreational opportunities while protecting natural and cultural resources. (CDPR
2008).
Management Unit: Area of land with distinct boundaries that often includes lands with
similar resources and management objectives. Management units define
manageable-sized areas for organizing and scheduling maintenance work. (DPR
DOM 0313.1.1.1.2)

53
Marsh: Flat, wet, treeless areas usually covered by standing water and supporting
grasses and grass-like plants. (1991 Soil Guidelines)
Monitoring: Data collection used by a land management agency and/or the Division to
make appropriate decisions.
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act pursuant to United States Code (U.S.C.) Title
42, Section 4371; 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 1500.1 et seq. CCR
4970, 2008, OHV Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program Regulations
Off-Highway Vehicle: An off-highway motor vehicle as specified in CVC Section 38006
and street licensed motor vehicles while being used off-highway. (CCR 4970, 2005)
Off-Site: Beyond the borders of the designated off-highway vehicle area. Off-site need
not mean transport onto land under a different ownership. (1991 Soil Guidelines)
Open Area or Open Ride Area: An expansive area used by off-highway vehicles, where
vehicle use is not limited to designated roads or trails. Established routes of travel
often exist or become established in Open Ride areas, but almost any portion of the
site may become impacted by off-highway vehicles at any time. (1991 Soil
Guidelines)
Prescribed Use: The type of OHV activity at the facility as established by the managing
entity. (CDPR 2008)
Project: means the activities and deliverables described in the project application to be
accomplished with funding through, which includes both Grant funds and matching
funds a project agreement. (14 CCR 4970.01)
Project Area: the physical boundaries within which the activities will be performed, and
deliverables will be accomplished as described in the project agreement. (14 CCR
4970.01)
Public Lands: Federal, state, county or city-owned or administered lands. (1991 Soil
Guidelines)
Recondition: To return a site to a functional condition. (Modified from Webster’s 10th
Edition Dictionary)
Repair: To fix, mend, make new, or revitalize to sound condition after being damaged.
Restoration: Upon closure of an OHV unit or any portion thereof, the restoration of land
to the contours, the plant communities, and plant covers comparable to those on
surrounding lands, or at least those that existed prior to off-highway motor vehicle
use. (PRC Section 5090.11)
Rill: An erosion channel cut into the soil along a line of water flow greater than 1 inch
and less than 6 inches deep. (CDF Hillslope Monitoring Program)

54
Rill Erosion: The development of numerous closely spaced channels generally less than
6 inches deep that result from the uneven removal of surface soil by running water
that is concentrated in streamlets of sufficient volume to generate cutting power.
(Modified from Glossary of Geology and CDF Hillslope Monitoring Study)
Riparian Area: The banks and other adjacent terrestrial environs of lakes, watercourses,
estuaries, and wet areas, where transported surface and subsurface freshwaters
provide soil moisture to support mesic vegetation. (FPRs, 2005, 895.1)
Roads: Logging roads, service roads, and other roughly graded roads upon which
vehicular travel is permitted. (CVC 38000)
Route: A road, trail, course, or way for travel from one place to another. (The American
Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, fourth Edition)
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle (ROV): Any vehicle as defined by California Vehicle.
(Code Section 500)
Sedimentation: The process by which soils, debris and other materials are deposited,
either on land or in water. (CDPR 2008)
Sensitive Natural Communities: Vegetation communities that are ranked S1-S3 by
CDFW. These communities are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or
region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects. These
communities may or may not contain special status plants or their habitat. CDFW’s
List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities is based on the best available
information, and indicates which natural communities are considered sensitive at the
current stage of the California vegetation classification effort. See the Vegetation
Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP) website for additional information
on natural communities and vegetation classification (CDFW)
Significant: Having a substantial or potentially substantial effect. (CDPR 2008)
Snowmobile: is a motor vehicle designed to travel over ice or snow in whole or in part
on skis, belts, or cleats, which is commonly referred to as an Over Snow Vehicle
(OSV) as defined in CVC 557.
Soil: All unconsolidated materials above bedrock; the unconsolidated mineral or organic
material on the immediate surface of the earth that serves as a natural medium for
the growth of land plants; the unconsolidated mineral or organic matter on the
surface of the earth that has been subjected to and shows effects of genetic and
environmental factors of climate (including water and temperature effects), and
macro-and microorganisms, conditioned by relief, acting upon parent material over
time. Soil differs from the material from which it is derived in many physical,
chemical, biological and morphological properties and characteristics. (American
Geological Institute, Glossary of Geology, 1997)

55
Soil Erosion: Detachment and movement of topsoil, or soil material from the upper part
of the profile, by the action of wind or running water, or as a result of changes
brought about by human activity. It includes: rill erosion, gully erosion, sheet erosion
and wind erosion. (American Geological Institute, Glossary of Geology, 1997)
Soil Loss: Movement of soil material to a location where the soil cannot be reasonably
retrieved and/or recycled. (CDPR 2008)
Special Status Species: plant or animal species that are listed or proposed for listing
under state or federal endangered species acts, species that meet the criteria for
listing even if not currently included (CEQA section 15380), species that are
biologically rare, very restricted in distribution, or declining throughout their range,
species that may be peripheral to the major population range but are threatened with
extirpation in California, species closely associated with a habitat that is declining in
California at a significant rate (e.g. wetlands, riparian, vernal pools, old growth
forests, desert aquatic systems native grasslands, valley shrubland habitats, etc.),
species designated as special status, sensitive, or declining by other state or federal
agencies, or a non-governmental organization, and determined by the CNDDB to be
rare, restricted, declining, or threatened across their range in California, species
listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act, plant species
considered locally significant, that is, plants that are not rare from a statewide
perspective but are rare or uncommon in a local context. (CDFW)
Staging/Parking/Camping Areas: These areas include all sites (designated and
undesignated) that are used for these activities. Staging areas commonly include
areas to unload off-highway vehicles from trucks or trailers and areas to fuel,
maintain, and wash the vehicles during and after use. This includes areas in the
vicinity of restrooms and bulletin boards. (1991 Soil Guidelines)
Standard: Any definite rule, principle, or measure established by authority. Something
established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example
(criterion); something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure
of quantity, weight, extent, value or quality. (Webster’s 9th New Collegiate
Dictionary)
Stream: A natural watercourse as designated by a solid line or dash and three dots
symbol shown on the largest scale United States Geological Survey map most
recently published. (FPRs, 2005, PRC section 4528 (f))
Sustainability: Managing soil and crop cultural practices so as not to degrade or impair
environmental quality on or off-site, and without eventually reducing yield potential
as a result of the chosen practice through exhaustion of either on-site resources or
nonrenewable inputs. (American Geological Institute, Glossary of Geology, 1997)
Sustainable: The facility is managed to meet the soil conservation standard for a
minimum service life of 25 years as defined by CCR 4970. (CDPR 2008)

56
Track: A facility designed and constructed for confined use of races and practice riding.
(1991 Soil Guidelines)
Trail: Any route that is not designated as a road. (1991 Soil Guidelines)
Trail Rehabilitation: temporarily closing a trail to improve drainage features and to
improve long-term sustainability.
Volunteer Trail: A trail that was formed by the passage of vehicles and not built by earth
moving machines or hand tools. (California State Parks)
Watercourse: Any well-defined channel with distinguishable bed and bank showing
evidence of having contained flowing water indicated by deposit of rock, sand,
gravel, or soil, including but not limited to, streams as defined in PRC 4528 (f).
FPRs, 2005, Title 14 CCR 895.1 Definitions

57
Appendix 2 – Soil Loss Modeling Tools
Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) 2. RUSLE2 is a predictive model of
water erosion, developed by the USDA from previous models and released in 2003. The
model can be applied to small or large landscapes with various conditions, including
vegetation and land use activities. Erosion modeling with RUSLE2 is limited to sheet
and rill erosion. Sheet erosion occurs when excess water removes surface material
relatively evenly from a wide area, whereas rill erosion occurs when excess water
removes surface material along defined depressions, or channels, generally less than
30 centimeters deep. RUSLE2 is an entirely Windows-based environment where all
calculations are made within that environment. RUSLE2 validation is from 10,000 plot-
years of data from natural runoff plots and 2,000 plot-years of rainfall simulated plots.
Daily soil loss rates are predicted based on the relationship between rainfall/runoff
(erosivity factor), soil erodibility, slope length, slope steepness, cover-management and
supporting practices. Each of these factors is discussed in more detail in the RUSLE2
User’s Reference Guide, available at
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/tools/rusle2/?cid=ste
lprdb1247278. The User’s Reference Guide provides more information about how to
select input values, make erosion estimates for a wide range of conditions, interpret the
computed values, and how to evaluate the model’s suitability for erosion control
planning. The model, database and instructions are available for download at
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/tools/rusle2/?cid=ste
lprdb1247274.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has developed a modified

RUSLE2 model, Caltrans RUSLE2, which is suited for large roadway construction
projects. Caltrans RUSLE 2 allows the user to predict pre-construction erosion rates
and to select construction and post-construction soil stabilization and sediment control
Best Management Practices (BMP) and revegetation techniques. The model gives the
user the ability to use a measurable process to select a suitable combination of
permanent and temporary BMPs for soil stabilization and sediment control during the
construction and post-construction project phases. More information and a link to
download software are available at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/hydraulics-
stormwater/bsddd-erosion-prediction-with-rusle2.

Geomorphic Road Analysis and Inventory Package (GRAIP) and GRAIP_Lite.

GRAIP and GRAIP_Lite are both created for use within ArcGIS. GRAIP is a detailed
road inventory procedure and model, combining analytical tools with an inventory
process, to predict erosion and sedimentation loading in waterways from roads and
trails. GRAIP uses observations to determine flow path, vegetation, connection,
drainpoint(s) and road segment locations on a relatively small scale (20 – 50 square-
kilometers). The package includes approaches to inventory roads and evaluate the
inventory for surface erosion, gully risk, landslide risk and stream crossing failure risks.
Additional resources and GRAIP software can be downloaded from
https://www.fs.fed.us/GRAIP/.

58
GRAIP_Lite is a more general prioritization tool that can be applied over a broader area
(subwatershed) and does not require the same intensive field data as GRAIP.
GRAIP_Lite utilizes DEMs, already existing road GIS layers, and a small field calibration
dataset to estimate flow path, vegetation, stream connections, drainpoint(s), and road
sediment production and delivery. GRAIP_Lite can be used to prioritize smaller areas
for more detailed analysis. Additional resources and GRAIP_Lite software can be
downloaded from https://www.fs.fed.us/GRAIP/GRAIP_Lite.html.

Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP). WEPP is a process-based model that

predicts soil erosion from water and can be used to predict sheet and rill detachment
and deposition, as well as channel detachment and deposition. Channel erosion occurs
when excess water removes surface material along defined depressions, or channels,
generally deeper than 30 centimeters. The model is applicable to areas tens of meters
for hillslope profiles, and up to hundreds of meters for small watersheds, where multiple
hillslopes, channels and impoundments can be linked together. The install package,
available at https://www.ars.usda.gov/midwest-area/west-lafayette-in/national-soil-
erosion-research/docs/wepp/wepp-downloads/, includes the prediction model,
Windows-based interface, climate models, and data for more than 20,000 types of soils.
More information about WEPP can be found at https://www.ars.usda.gov/midwest-
area/west-lafayette-in/national-soil-erosion-research/docs/wepp/research/.

The US Forest Service has also developed user-friendly WEPP interfaces that can be
utilized to predict erosion and sedimentation by water on insloped and outsloped roads.
A single road can be modeled using WEPP:Road, and multiple roads and road
segments can be modeled using WEPP:Road Batch. The US Forest Service WEPP
interfaces are available for download at https://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/.

Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS). WEPS is a series of linked, process-based

models that simulate weather, field conditions, management, and soil loss/deposition
within a single field (trail/road or project area/management unit) or multiple, adjacent
fields over a selected period of time. Vegetation or lack of vegetation and repeated
disturbance by vehicle use can also be simulated in the model. More information about
WEPS and a link to download the software can be found at
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/tools/weps/.

59
Appendix 3 – Trail Evaluation Form
I. Form Header Information

Trail Name / No.

Enter name and/or number of the trail for the rated segment.

Vehicle Type
Circle one or more of the vehicle types, MC (motorcycle), ATV (all-terrain vehicle), or 4x4 (four
wheel drive), or SM (snow mobile).

Trail Difficulty
Circle one of the trail difficulties, easiest, more difficult, most difficult.

USGS Quad
Enter the name of the USGS topographic map quadrangle on which the rated segment occurs.

Planning Watershed
Enter in either the name or the code for the CalWater (2.2) planning watershed in which the trail
occurs (http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/features/calwater/ ).

Begin Segment
Enter the location where the rated segment starts. This could be a GPS file designation, a named
trail junction, a milepost, etc.

End Segment
Enter the location where the rated segment ends. This could be a GPS file designation, a named trail
junction, a milepost, etc.

Site Characteristics
Give a generic description of the site and soil-related conditions that exist along the trail.

Soil/Geology
Enter a brief description of the soil and/or geologic units on which the trail segment is located.
Information can be provided from field observations by a qualified soil scientist or geologist, or it
may be obtained from NRCS or USFS soils maps, geological publications listed in the California
Geological Survey (CGS) geology/soils index and website, and other published and unpublished
reports including

Vegetation
Enter a brief description of the primary vegetation present in the vicinity of the trail.

Range of Side Slopes

Circle the range of side slope percent (%) that the segment of trail crosses.

Trail Slope
Enter the average trail slope and the maximum trail slope in percent (%) for the segment evaluated.

60
Rating (GYR)
As the final step in completing the form, enter the recommended overall rating for the whole
segment. Enter only one letter for the rating: a G, Y, or R.

GPS Ref
Enter the file name of the GPS record. Add location information following post-processing of the
GPS record.

Rated By
Enter your name or initials as the rater.

Date
Enter the date the field observations were made and recorded.

Reviewed By
Signature of responsible official who reviewed and acted on the rating.

Date
Date reviewed by responsible official.

Page __ of __
Enter page number and total number of pages used to rate the segment.

II. Form Body Information

Column 1 – Section; Begin – End

For features with a length dimension, enter the beginning and ending distance of that feature, e.g.
1200 feet to 1500 feet for a 300foot feature. Distance can either be from an established reference
point such as a trail marker (mile post) or intersection, or the GPS file designation for the beginning
and ending points.

Column 2 - Section Length

Enter the length of the section being evaluated and note whether it is an estimate or has been
measured.

Column 3 - Trail Slope

Enter the slope (grade) of the tread surface for the section evaluated as a percent (%) If the slope
varies, enter the range followed by the slope most typical for the section in parentheses, e.g. 3 –
25% (6%).

Column 4 - Crossings
Facing downstream, every crossing has three primary components: the left approach (LA), the right
approach (RA) and the channel section (CS). Enter a checkmark (√ or X) in the column
corresponding to the part of the crossing being evaluated, e.g. LA for left approach. Rate each
component on a separate line. Rate each approach according to G7, Y7, or R7. Rate each channel
section according to G8, Y8, or R8. Record the condition of all watercourse approaches even if the
rating is a G7. This serves as documentation that the approach was evaluated.

Approach Length (from last water break or drainage divide to channel)

61
 Trail Gradient < 30 feet 30 – 150 feet > 150 feet
<8% G7 G7 Y7
8 – 20% G7 or Y7 Y7 or R7 R7
> 20% Y7 or R7 R7 R7
Guidelines for Rating Approaches to Watercourse Crossings

The key concept is sediment delivery. Where runoff water from a trail is drained onto a natural
slope a long distance from a watercourse, most sediment is filtered out before it can reach a
watercourse.

Column 5 - GYR Condition Codes

Enter the appropriate condition code using the Green, Yellow, Red indicators of trail conditions
listed as guidelines. More detailed descriptions are presented in the expanded 2008 Soil
Conservation Guidelines/Standards for OHV Recreation Management. Where variable conditions
are encountered, the rater will have to use good judgment using the condition codes as an overall
guide. Additional details can be written in the comments section of the form.

Column 6 - Cause Codes

Using the cause codes provided as guidelines, enter a cause code for each trail section where a
condition code was entered in Column 5. More detailed cause code descriptions are presented in
the expanded 2008 Guidelines/Standards. Most trail condition problems have multiple causes.
Generally, one to three causes, listed in order of importance, will be enough to describe the
problem. If the cause of an observed condition is unique, then describe that cause in the comments
column. A cause code combined with a GYR condition code will usually both describe the problem
and identify a treatment.

Column 7 – Comments
Record observations and recommendations not captured by the basic codes, including unique non-
repeatable data.

Column 8 – Photograph Number (s)

Enter the identification number(s) for photographs taken of the evaluated section. As a minimum,
one photo should be taken for each section given a Red condition code. If the entire trail segment
has been rated Green, take at least one photograph of a representative section of the trail segment

62
 OHV Trail Condition Evaluation Form
Trail Name _________________________________Trail No. ________________ Vehicle Type: MC ATV 4x4 SM Trail Difficulty: easiest, more difficult, most difficult

USGS Quad _____________________ Planning Watershed ___________________________ Begin Segment _________________ End Segment ____________________

Site Characteristics: Soil/Geology __________________________________________ Vegetation _____________________________ Side Slopes: 0-30% 30-50% >50%

RATING (G,Y,R) _____GPS Ref _________________ Avg Trail Slope ___% Max Trail Slope ____% Rated By _____ Date _____ Reviewed By ____ Date ____ Page __ of __

Section Crossings
Section Trail Photograph
B = Begin Cause Codes Comments
Length slope LA CS RA Numbers
E = End

BE

BE

BE

BE

BE

BE

BE

BE

BE

BE
 OHV Trail Condition Evaluation Code Key
Green Yellow Red

G1 Water control is provided by enough functional water breaks to Y1 Water breaks do not divert all runoff from the trail because R1 Water breaks no longer divert runoff from the trail because
divert runoff from the trail before it has the volume and velocity they are nearly filled to capacity and/or are partially breached, they are full and/or have been breached, or are absent or
to cause erosion. Where present, rills occur on less than 1/3 of or spaced too widely. Where present, rills occur on more than spaced too widely. Gully or rill erosion may be present.
the distance between water breaks. 1/3 of the distance between water breaks

G2 No accelerated erosion off-trail. Runoff at water break outlets Y2 Rill erosion and/or sediment deposition occurs at water break R2 Gully erosion occurs at water break outlets or on slopes
and on slopes adjacent to the trail is dispersed effectively. outlets and/or on slopes adjacent to the trail. All sediment is adjacent to the trail and/or sediment is transported to a
Vegetation or litter filters all sediment. filtered or deposited before it reaches a watercourse. Type I or Type II watercourse.

G3 Sediment traps, where present, are functional and have Y3 Where present, most sediment traps are full or nearly full, but R3 Where present, sediment traps have been breached and
adequate capacity for at least one season of use. Trapped still functional. Most trapped sediment can be retrieved during have a plume of sediment and/or a gully below the breach.
sediment can be retrieved during normal maintenance. normal maintenance. Most sediment cannot be retrieved.

G4 Tread wear is minimal. Tread is generally incised less than 6 Y4 Tread wear is evident. Tread is generally incised 6 to 12 inches R4 Tread wear is severe. Tread incision is generally greater
inches. Tread wear is generally evident on less than 1/3 of the and tread wear is generally evident on more than 1/3 the than 12 inches deep and tread wear is generally evident on
distance between water breaks or on less than 1/3 of the tread distance between water breaks and on more than 1/3 of the the entire distance between water breaks.
width. tread width.

G5 Tread width is generally no greater than 1.5 times the design Y5 Tread width is generally greater than 2 times the design width R5 Tread width is generally greater than 3 times the design
width for the designated use. for the designated use and appears to be increasing. width for the designated use and has caused or is causing
erosion, sedimentation, and damage to vegetation.

G6 Off-trail travel is limited to single tracks or single passes Y6 Off-trail travel is common, well defined, and generally greater R6 Off-trail travel has caused severe resource damage, gully
generally less than 300 feet long. Tracks are not eroded and than 300 feet long. Water control is inadequate and some erosion, eroded hill climbs, or extensive damage to
have little effect on water control. erosion is apparent. vegetation and/or sensitive habitat.

G7 Approach to watercourse crossing is short and has a gentle Y7 Approach to watercourse crossing is short and steep or long and R7 Approach to watercourse crossing is both steep and long
gradient. Tread is stable, shows little evidence of erosion, and is gentle. Tread may show some evidence of erosion and may and/or tread is unstable and shows evidence of accelerated
at design width. No damage to riparian vegetation outside the show evidence of widening. Minimal damage to riparian erosion. Approach may be widening and damaging riparian
tread. vegetation. vegetation.

G8 Channel Section has only minor channel widening, minor bank Y8 Channel Section has widened moderately, modest bank erosion, R8 Channel Section has widened significantly, extensive bank
erosion, no bars. modest lateral and/or mid-channel bars. erosion, large lateral and mid-channel bars.

G9 Outboard Fill is stable. Exhibits minor surficial sloughing without Y9 Outboard Fill is distressed. Exhibits cracking and Moderate R9 Outboard Fill has failed and sediment is moving down slope.
sediment transport sloughing w/ limited sediment transport.
 CAUSE CODES CAUSE CODES

C1 Water breaks not constructed to design standards C11 Rocks or roots exposed in tread

C2 Water break spacing is too wide for conditions C12 Barriers (natural or constructed) to control traffic are lacking

C3 Cascading runoff from a trail or road upslope C13 Mechanical erosion makes maintenance ineffective

C4 Cascading runoff from an impervious surface upslope C14 Storm intensity unusual or unique for the area

C5 Wet area caused by a seep or spring C15 Design / layout /construction prevents effective drainage

C6 Excess soil moisture at time of use C16 Uncompacted sidecast on outboard slope

C7 Trail section is poorly located (describe) C17 Berms, Whoops, and stutter bumps

C8 Trail gradient is too steep for the type and/or amount of use occurring C18 Crossing alters channel dimensions and/or stream gradient.

C9 Segment is not designated or designed for the type or amount of use occurring C19 Rutting or vegetation damage to meadow, spring, wet area, riparian area

C10 Trail Blockage, e.g. brush, logs, rockfall, landslide C20 Segment is not designed for the type and amount of use occurring
Appendix 4 – Maintenance Checklist Form
Mechanized Construction - Maintenance Checklist
Trail Name ________________Trail No.____________ Segment No. _______________
Trail Difficulty easiest more difficult most difficult Max Trail Slope ___% Ave Trail Slope ___%
Activity: maintenance reconditioning new construction Side Slope:____%
Drainage: Outslope Rolling Dip Confined Flat Other_______
Equipment: Hand Trail Tractor Mini-excavator Other__________
Soil Type: clayey loamy sandy Rock Fragments (%): <15 15-50 >50
Soil Depth: shallow deep Vegetation Type: _________ Photo Numbers: ______________
Operator _____________________ Assistant(s) _______________Date _________
Last Maintenance (mo/yr) ______ Maintenance Type : Hand Mechanical
Notes:_________________________________________________________________

Guideline Yes No N/A

1. This checklist was reviewed before starting maintenance or

construction on this trail

2. Prior to mobilization the completed OHV Trail Condition Evaluation

Forms were reviewed and trail segments, sections, or features
needing maintenance or reconditioning were confirmed.

3. Equipment was operated by certified operators, or under direct

supervision of certified operator

4. If new, this trail was constructed to Guidelines

5. OHV rolling dips were constructed/maintained by compacting

moist soil in lifts no greater than 4 inches loose thickness

6. Prior to mobilization, need for maintenance with mechanical

equipment was validated

7. The blade was lifted and the equipment walked across sections of
trail that needed no maintenance

8. Soil collected in rolling dip outlets was recycled into rolling dip
structures or back onto the trail tread

9. Berms were worked back into the trail tread, not bladed off the
trail as sidecast
10. Rills and gullies in treads were repaired with soil reclaimed from
rolling dip outlets or from outside berms, not by blading the trail
tread

11. Soil sloughed from cutbanks or sideslopes above the trail was
bladed only as needed to maintain a safe trail; cutbanks were not
bladed into or undercut

12. Whoops and stutter (braking) bumps were repaired by ripping,

blading, and compacting trail treads when soil was moist (except for
non-cohesive soils)

13. The amount of soil moved was the smallest amount needed to
meet the maintenance objective

14. Where soil was too dry for compaction, maintenance was
deferred or done by hand

If “no” is checked, enter a footnote number and write a brief explanation under comments.
Comments: __________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________